the north and the south? >> absolutely. >> was that successful? >> yorninge anything was successful in those days because tensions were so high about as efficiently as anybody else could. it really was. the white house really glittered. >> welcome to the conversation. >> thank you. a comment and we visited the james buchanan house and among the things of a was about harriet lane and her endowment so that a handbook for the house officers could be used. they said the book they have been referencing for years was for a first lady but it was obvious from the tour why she

was interested in so many things. it it was not clear why she had empathy andrest for advocacy for native americans island i wonder if your guests could explain about that. >> i think there were some indian chieftans who came to the white house to visit, and i think they made a great impression on her, and she became interested in indian welfare. and she was interested in their education. she was interested in their medical well being and health. which was a very -- it was a proper thing for her to be interested in. nobody is going to be objecting to educating children or taking care of people who were sick.

so it was certainly a good thing for her to do. the indians thought of her as their great white mother. >> you talked about the first lady and the white house. >> she had connections to the johns hopkins hospital and the pediatric unit she set up. >> we'll talk about that in a minute. >> a question from jenny webber. harriet lane had a cutter named after her. also, i heard she got into trouble for throwing a party on the ship in question. is that true? >> yes. >> all right. tell us the story. >> how they named the ship after her, i don't know. but her uncle was president of the united states.

he may have been able to swing it. he did. he invited some friends of hers to have a party on the ship. her uncle got wind of this, and he hollared at her. not for having a party, but the ship was public property and he felt she should not have used public property. he didn't want her to accept any kind of giferts. gifts. >> here we'll learn more about the parlor and his entertaining style. >> here we are at wheatland. this is the home of president james buchanan and harriet lane, his niece. in 1848, they moved here.

this was the place she would call home until the age of 36 when she married and moved to baltimore. while entering the parlor here at wheat land, this was a special home. this was the place where harriet lane as a host for her uncle, james buchanan, might serve tea to friends and guests, write letters to her friends. this is the room where the family lived. they would spend time together, play games, sing. just enjoy each other's company. very much like we would use a family room today. here we had harriet lane's piano. it is manufactured by the chickering company of boston. this was probably purchased in the mid to late 1860's. we have her music book here. it was embossed with her name on the front. it contains a number of pieces including italian classics, and we also have some patriotic songs in here. one of her uncle's favorite things to do was sit in this

parlor on a sunday afternoon and listen to his niece play the religious hymns. he was a devout presbyterian. harriet lane was enthusiastic about all things european, and when her uncle was selected as minister penitentiary in the court of st. james, she was excited she might be able to acome any him. she made a great impression. she had manners, poise, dignity. the queen was impressed with her. as a result rvings the two of them formed an interesting friendship that would continue

throughout most of their lives. this is actually a gift that the queen gave harriet. it is a beautiful gold bracelet. it has her name inside, harriet lane, and the date when she received the gift. behind her we have a legitimate graph of queen victoria and her husband, prince albert. these were a dip nationalic gift presented to james buchanan and his niece, harriet lane, his first lady, during the time he was in the white house. they also entertained visitors during their time in the white house as well. the japanese delegation came to the white house in 1860's. what we see here are some of the little things they got. beautiful little shoes, paper followeded, objects, origami. this is a dictionary in japanese. her friends found all of these things very intriguing. >> patricia on facebook asks, is it true that harriet lane hosted the prince of wales at the white house?

>> this was known as one of the huge successes. >> huge success. >> why? >> he was the son of the reaning monarch, and he was, i guess, the highest ranking person that ever came here. everybody knew queen victoria. he went to canada. buchanan knew queen victoria. he said listen, as long as he's in the neighborhood, come on down. so he did. they invited him. he stayed at the white house. >> is that protocol to have the prince of wales be vanquished in a competitive game?

>> not really. he just didn't play very well. >> probably the first time he lost at anything. let's take a call from president buchanan's hometown, lancaster, pennsylvania. caroline is watching us there. hi, caroline. welcome. >> thank you. i would like to know how harriet lane is his niece. is it his brother's wife? his sister's daughter? >> it's his sister's daughter. in fact, over the course of his lifetime, it seems he took care of a lot of children. >> he did. i think he had one brother and about four million sisters. he came from a very large family.

he did very well in life and he supported in some way rather about 15 or 16 different nieces and nephews. he had a lot of sisters. >> there's a story about why he is a batch lower. he did have a great love interest in the book. >> they say when he was a young man, he was engaged to a woman. it didn't work out too well. depends on what book you read it didn't work out for a lot of different reasons. the engagement was broken, and he later -- she later, not all that much later, died, and some suspect she committed suicide. the relationship between buchanan and his form erin former intended family really was very bad. they would not let him come to the funeral or anything else.

just how much he loved her and how much was true and how much was embellished, we probably will never know. >> do you have anything more to add to that story? >> not really. my understanding is that her father discovered -- he had apparently been thrown out for some misdemeanor, and my understanding is that her father discovered the reasons for his being thrown out of college. >> this is buchanan? >> yes. >> and heckled him about it. then told his daughter, ann, and ann had some words with buchanan about it. and we can only guess.

at what the secret was. she apparently did commit suicide. >> so he devoted himself to politics and raising his many nieces and nephews. >> there is a story that he had a short fling with julie tyler before she became mrs. tyler. >> the only problem is julia tyler was in washington before she married the president. she was very, very popular. and she had plings flings, whatever that means today, with a lot of different men, a lot of different much older men. she seemed to attract a lot of older men. but whatever went on between julia and buchanan was really negligentible. >> and ultimately married one 30 years her senior. >> yes.

>> who became president. >> yes. >> and the next call from barbara in brookhaven, pennsylvania. >> i too remember the story when i visited wheatland about a broken-hearted buchanan when his fan say jilted him. it has something to do with her family's objection to him. so apparently was just so broken hearted there was just never anyone else for him. i remember hearing that story from a tour guide when i went through wheatland. >> thank you. here's a request from wallace lee. president buchanan was originally from merserburg, pennsylvania, born and raised, and he moved to lancaster as an adult. it is discertaining to say he was from lancaster. >> he chose it to be his adult home.

>> is it true that as he was get setting the stage for his many runs for the presidency, that he would use that stage for many -- >> that was a lovely home. >> so on the way to washington, he would invite people to come to wheatland? our next caller is named linda. are you on. >> i want you to lab rit on harriet lane's wedding. >> hair let lane did not get married until long after the white house. l many she was 35 years old or 36 years old when she got married. she married a man named henry johnson. he was a banker. some people think he may have been a lawyer first and then a banker.

he was wealthy. they always seemed to like each other. maybe by that time it was time for her to get married. >> he died a year and a half later, so he probably knew that he was getting on in life and this way harriet would be settled, and then they moved to baltimore. and they lived in baltimore. >> you called if a failed presidency. obviously the nation was about to split about, south carolina was about to secede. the population was 35% growth since the 1850 census. there were 3.9 million slaves, about 13% of the population, and the largest cities in the country at that time were new york city, philadelphia, brooklyn, new york, and

baltimore. all in the northeast. harriet lane, was she also a political advisor to the president? if so, it didn't turn out so well. >> it all depends on what do you mean by advice? was she political advice in the sense of abigail adams? no. i think she was a little bit more in the dolly madison vain of the socially helpful to him. he trained her to listen to well and to observe and so -- to take note of what was going on and to form opinions. but she was usually quite quiet about expressing her opinion, which was one of the reasons

that she was very popular. she didn't do anything wrong. >> here's a question. how have the duties of the first ladies evolved from martha washington until this day? it sounds like there are a lot of similarities, really. it depends on the individual first lady as to how. >> it is. actually, i think that the first three first ladies -- martha, abigail, and dolly -- were far harder working and more actively involved in their husband's lives and in their careers. and my own opinion was that when we stopped being colonies and started being a country, maybe by the 1800's or so, that generation growing up, we were growing to be more -- they were more prominent. they were very prosperous. men wanted their wives to have all sorts of lovely things. they catered to them a lot more.

they didn't have to work quite as hard. ladies at that time, they started, i guess being frailer. >> 1857 the key supreme court -- the dred scott supreme court decision on slavery. in 1858, the lecompton constitution. in 1860, the pony express was established. and in 1861, the creation of the confederate states of america. this white house was dealing with enormous problems but not very effectively. how did the buchanan administration try to approach the negotiating, using the white house and bringing parties

together? >> i think i would have to defer to you. >> they entertained a lot. they had two dinners a week for 40 people at each dinner. >> how could they keep tensions from breaking out? >> they were at a tremendous all-time high. and harriet wore another hat. not only was she hostess, but she also was very actively involved in the protocol of it. she would spend hours working on the seating plans. i can't sit next to you, you can't sit over there, and who can't be over here because they are not talking to each other. she worked very, very hard at that. fortunately she knew all the players. she knew all these different senators and cabinet members and congressmen and so she knew how to put them and where to put

them and she worked very hard at it. >> did she attend debates in congress? >> occasionly. >> another pennsylvania caller. i can see their favorite son is interesting callers tonight. chris, go ahead, please. >> during the time that harriet lane was in the house at wheatland, can you tell us how many people were in the house, how many staff were at the house at wheatland? >> i don't know. they had miss millie who was the house keaper. >> heddie. and i do know that they had a steward, because when they first went to the white house, miss heddie and then harriet didn't want that.

so heddie had to go back to wheatland. >> that was my comment, to bring in relatives. >> and to underscore. the people that worked at wheatland were paid. >> no. >> donna in idaho. go ahead, please. welcome. >> i have a small little story for you. >> ok. >> i taught first ladies for several years in an elder program here, and when i got to james buchanan, she said, i have something to show everybody. she showed everyone her ring. she said this belongs to my husband's family. this is the ring that james buchanan gave his fiance, this is the original ring. >> did she have any proof of that?

>> no, only a great story. >> somehow it went all the way to idaho. >> before you close the show i hope you discuss her tragic family and losing her sons and the lovely legacy. >> yes, indeed, we plan to. >> we promise it will be an interesting one. a full two hours on the lincoln administration. so what were the post white house years like for harriet lane? >> well, she went back to wheatland with her uncle for about five years or so, and then she married johnson. they moved to baltimore where he was a banker, and he was quite prominent and well to do.

and they had these two sons, and unfortunately -- harriet had about 15 decent years as mrs. johnson. both her sons died young. i think they were like 12 or 13 or 14. they were young boys. she is another one that lost both of her children. and about a year and a half after the boys died, her husband died. so harriet is now around 50ish and she is a widow on her own. and she moves back to washington, d.c. and she gets to be a little like dolly. she gets invited to the white house just about every time they are going to be having a big deal. she gets invited. no party is a party unless she's there. she does a lot of good. she really does. >> we'll take a call and then talk a little more about her. this is charles in wheatland,

pennsylvania. how about that? there's a town named after the estate. >> good evening. i don't know if your panel there has heard of it, it is a radio suburb of youngstown t. right across the state line. it is named after the estate. it was originally an old canal town. and then there is the wheatland tube company, which is a large producer of tubes and hirne et cetera. the only question i have, i wonder if there are any other towns named after the estate of a president? i think this is rather unusual. >> that is a detailed tailed question. do you know the answer? >> no. >> we're going to return to wheatland for our last video of this program, and learn more about harriet lane's post white house years. >> harriet's lane was marked by

loss and trauma. there were many different tragedies that happened in her life. early in life she lost both her parents, several young siblings, then when she reached adulthood, the loss of her three siblings that also reached adulthood with her. then her uncle, then her two young sons and her husband ultimately. you can see here her jewelery box which would have held many trinkets and jewels. some of them used for those more intimate and also very sad owe indications when she was grieving. i have some pieces of mourning jewelery here that are very interesting. the first is a mourning locket that contains the hair her mother, her father, and three of her siblings, and it is unique in that that the locket encloses a little ball.

as the wheel turns, scomputh each glass plate is the hair of hundred one of her family members, and it contains their hair and it is engaved with the date of their death. this piece here of the locket is woven with a little pattern of hair from three of her young nieces and nephews. it is a beautiful locket. on the back we can see more hair and then the engravings of their names and the dates of their deaths. this piece is a very interesting locket in that it opens on two sides. in the first side, we can see a picture of her sister who died prematurely. when she came home from england she heard the news her dear sister had died. on the other side, her brother.

this is an artsy photograph taken sometime near the end of her life. he also was the young man that died unfortunately just after president buchanan's inauguration. he would have been the personal secretary to the president. he died of an unfortunate case of dysentary that affected many people who stayed at the white house at that time. now this is a beautiful cameo on the front. when you turn it around, you can see a lock of his hair behind the glass plate. tut from wheatland on the day he died. his lasts words uttered on june 1, 1858. it says "oh, lord god almighty, i have lived well." from the outside it appears to be a normal, ordinary piece of

jewelery. >> the this is a memorial pour trait. those boys died from what we now know as rheumatic fever. one died here and then another died in france when she went to seek a cure. they are dressed in their best clothes and posed with their favorite possessions to show them as they would have been in life as a memorial for their mother to remember them by. >> and as we wrap up a program here, a caller asked us to make sure we talk about the white house years and if she got involved in them, and there were many. she and her husband together created wuvent first homes for

invalid children. it is now still part of johns hopkins in its current incarnation. she was quite an art collector, and her art collection was donated to the smithsonian. it became the foundation for the national gallery of art in washington, d.c. she was involved in the creation of st. auburn school. a very influential school in boston. we have a picture of that. you earlier called it a failed presidency, but it is quite a memorial. >> yes, it is, here in the meridian park area of washington, d.c. >> i have a question for both of you. we are trying to understand with each of these ladies, their influence on the country and the roles that they had and how important it was. where would you put harriet lane in the pantheon of first ladies

in terms of her importance. >> second. >> i would put her right below if she were mrs. buchanan instead of niece of buchanan, i think she would be second to dolly. >> i still think so even though she is miss lane and not mrs. buchanan. >> why is that? >> the interest she had in people. everybody loved her. she brought cordiality to the role of first lady after the previous two or three presidencies. she was a great girl, and everybody loved her. >> i want to thank our guests for this program on jane pierce first and harriet lane. both of our guests have books available l where you can read more about these first ladies. one is "remembering the ladies," and "first ladies, an intimate

portrait of the women who shaped america." thank you to both of you for being with us, and thank you to all of you for being our audience this evening. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

each weeknight this month, we bring you another episode of "first ladies." episodes.is fall, all ne the new season begins monday, september 9, but the program on edith roosevelt. tomorrow night, looking at mary todd lincoln and during the program, visit our facebook page for a discussion with historian catherine clinton responding to your comment in question at .acebook.com/c-span read about the first ladies in the continuing book on the series from the white house a store co-association. you can get your copy for -- historical association.

public-span -- we bring events from washington directly to you putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, briefings, and conferences offering complete gavel to gavel coverage of the ..s. house all as a service the c-span, created by the cable television industry 34 years ago and funded by your local cable or satellite provider. now you can watch us in hd. >> looking across the way to the u.s. capitol, things are basically empty this evening and for the next few weeks, august recess, but the issue of the healthcare law continuing to halls duringg town the home district. today, we're going to focus on the affordable care act and ask you about its implementation, ask you what you think about it, how things are going for the implementation in your state.

what questions you need answered. we are entering your questions on facebook today as well. how are things going with the implementation? what sort of things do you need answered? we posted on facebook and we will check those in a moment. 3cspanchat. let's take a look at a couple of them. my question is, if this is such a great thing, many in government jobs and union jobs don't want it. over 5 million people in california live in medically underserved areas or health professional shortage areas.

why is this law screwing the rural areas? example, tort reform. both purchases for prescription drugs like the -- we will get your phone calls and read more of those in just a moment. a quick check of some of the news happenings today and the major world news happening in egypt, in cairo today. the reporting of the associated press story on the death toll so far in egypt. egyptian officials say 278 people have been killed today in nationwide clashes between police and supporters of ousted president mohammed morsi. 235 civilians killed and 43 others who were killed were police officers. in washington today, former

representative jesse jackson before a federal court sentenced to prison. here is the story from his home town newspaper, the chicago tribune. he was sentenced to 30 months behind bars. his wife sandy got a year in prison for separate felonies involving the misrepresentation misspending of the funds, $750,000 in campaign funds. they will be allowed to serve their sentences one at a time with jesse jackson jr. going first. jesse jackson again sentenced today in washington. in nearby baltimore, outside baltimore, the sentencing hearing today for private bradley manning. here is the recording rejigger reporting of the nearby

baltimore sun. manning testifies, i am sorry that i hurt the united states. he told a judge today he was dealing with a lot of issues at the time. reading from a statement that he held in his hand, 25-year-old man spoke for three minutes. he said he understood what he was doing at the time but did not fully appreciate the consequences. we will get to your calls on the health care law, the implementation of the health- care law in just a minute. a health-care policy reporter for the wall street journal has written a number of articles. >> thanks for having me. >> how on track is the affordable care act, how on track is it for implementation over the next year or so? >> it claims that it is on track, the openings changes in

all 50 states, the open enrollment season where people can sign up. this is only the cornerstone of the law where people can shop for coverage if they don't have it. we have heard there have been a number of delays with specific things that will be happening not quite on the day they were planned. it depends really what you mean by on time and on track. some things have shifted dramatically and running really behind schedule. >> are those things all small things or there one or two items that are causing considerable concern from lawmakers are folks who have an insurance policy and wonder what the next up is? >> it is a combination of

issues, the supreme court decision made medicaid participation optional four states. there will be up to 30 million people who are still uninsured, and that was really not quite expected at the time. a couple of changes affect people who get coverage through their employers, but the law itself does not affect them as much as the millions of americans who do not have coverage right now. >> let's take this back to capitol hill in the story reported on last week before congress left for the august recess. the headline, new rules for lawmakers and staff to buy health insurance.

was it mandated by the health care law? >> there is a popular provision in the law, covered by people of all parties. members of congress and staff have to buy coverage through the insurance exchanges next year. for decades members of congress and their staff had been treated with federal employees. merging the two requirements that members of congress and their staff have to get this, it is a solution that has not satisfied everybody, but what they will keep is the federal government contribution toward the cost of claims which is pretty generous come up to 25% in some cases. primarily in washington d.c. and maryland and virginia, for #'s to work on the hill. >> work are you hearing from

sources and folks that you talked to on capitol hill about this change in their plan? >> it does require some changes. the premium is one element of it. there may be some people who end up having to move up their existing insurance. there is still some consternation and it will be a question now but if it can be sorted out under a tight timeframe. >> we are asking our viewers and facebook posters about questions they have about the implementation of the health- care law. i wonder if you could hang on the line for a couple of minutes and we will be back in a minute.

nancy is in montana on the democrats' line. good evening, you are first up. >> i have been working on health care reform for five years. it seems like every day, and unfortunately i live in a state that they will not accept the expanded medicaid. i was very excited to have insurance for the first time in 20 years. it has been brought to my attention that i don't make enough money to access the market places, yet i make too much money to be eligible for medicaid in my state. i understand there are 30 other states that did not accept the expanded medicaid and i wonder if there will be some kind of package or if they are going to tweak it somehow. there are going to be an awful lot of people that fall through that crack.

>> it sounds like the situation with prescription drugs a couple of years ago. >> there are 7 million people by my calculation on people who are under the poverty line -- the patch is not very easy. it would require congress to come to an agreement over how it would change, but they don't seem to agree with each other. >> a political question for you, a twitter's from bill who asked about, not a single republican elected official that wanted to defund obamacare has offered to give up their government health care. >> there are giving it up sort of in that they are going with the exchanges. i don't know if anybody has not

offered to give that up bge has offered to give that up. i have not heard of anybody doing that. >> for our viewers and c-span radio listeners, the lines are open. let's go to our independent line to alabama. >> alabama voted against its, as far as implementing it into the state. there was a study that found it would actually increase the rates by 40% in this state and up to 50-something% in other states. >> what rate are you talking about?

>> insurance overall. >> what are we hearing about so far, the early numbers in terms of whether the law is affecting this caller? >> i have been looking at insurance rates and a number of state senate is definitely the case that they are changing. in many cases the benefits are getting more rich. on top of that, the way in which people's individual insurance is calculated, based on their medical history -- everybody is becoming more equal in that sense. if you are young and healthy and getting low-cost -- if you are sick and not able to buy

insurance at all, your rate is coming down. particularly in states in the south. if it is a state that insurance was traditionally cheap, now is more tightly regulated through the federal requirements. the price tag is also greater. >> the democrats lined from north carolina. go ahead. go ahead with your comment or question. >> my question is for those of us that do not have access to information on the internet, can you give us an address or phone number how we can get this information, how to sign up? i know it is a very simple question, but north carolina has chosen to not -- there are leaving it to the federal government. my other comment is, we hear people say if this becomes law, it is going to be a disaster. each one of those

representatives were voted into office by their constituents. it was signed into law by the executive branch and ultimately by the judicial branch. it is the law. it is just stupid to say if this becomes the law. >> one of our producers is going to look of the health-care agency in north carolina to get a toll-free number we can announce on the air. any thoughts on his predicament there? >> it is a really interesting question. it does for ball around the idea that there is a website out there that people can go to. as i understand it, -- the caller may know something on

their end. there is not a lot of money being spread around the states to uninsured people. >> you can read her reporting in the wall street journal, online, and follow her on twitter as well. thanks for being with us this evening. throughout the evening we are going to look at some of the questions that members of congress are getting on health care as they are back in their home districts and taking questions on a wide range of issues that different town halls and different settings,

including the democratic leader, nancy pelosi, in a town hall in san francisco. >> as you know, more than three years ago, president obama with a stroke of a pin it may help care for all americans a right, not a privilege. a reality. in doing so, president obama honored the value of our founders of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. liberty, the freedom to pursue each of our own happiness. if you were an artist, a cameraman, a writer, an individual who could be self- employed, you could start your own business, you could change jobs. if you even had a policy could be confined. we go forward to make this a reality.

that is a very important part of like it is important for us to have comprehensive affordable quality health care for all americans. here in california, already 8.1 million californians are now receiving preventive services. 435 young adults are now safely covered by their parents plan, just in our state. california seniors have saved over half a billion dollars a prescription drug medication and soon, being a woman in california will no longer be a pre-existing medical condition. >> all of that town hall meeting with leader pelosi is available on our website at c-span.org in the video library. more of your calls as we get back to the implementation of the health-care law. pennsylvania, at independent line. >> thank you for taking my call.

at the national governors' association summit meeting, dr. brenner expose the law that says the crisis in health care [indiscernible] a committee of doctors who set the prices, you cannot download it or even look at it, you have to pay for it. the insurers negotiate a percentage of the schedule. the doctor says the system is biased by the negotiation. >> we covered a number of panel discussions here on c-span. was that one of them? >> he did cover it.

it seem like he was sort of exposing the law to the others in the meeting. >> what was the underlying question for the ama? why don't they released the information so it is available to everybody? >> why is it just a small group of doctors deciding what health care costs are going to be? the doctors are setting their own prices. i guess that is my comment and also questioned as to why is this happening? why is the health-care industry unable to put their input into the cost? >> thanks for your input. the discussion she talked about at the national governors' meeting in milwaukee, you can find that in our video library as well.

let's go to the republican line. good evening. san diego, joey, are you there? >> thank you for hearing my call. i just have a question about the implementation under both congress and the senate. as far as the oversight for them actually using it for themselves. we have heard a couple of things going left to right, i am just curious to see if it has been discussed. >> we have talked about a couple of issues in terms of the implementation. i am sure those issues will continue to come up this evening. back to the implementation issue and the delay the wall street journal talked about.

here is the reporting today about some of the delays. she writes that republicans opposed have had scant luck in overturning the law. in february, the administration delayed part of our requirement that some employer health insurance plans cap employees out of pocket costs. in june, a rule that small businesses offer either a single plan or allow employees to choose among different plans was delayed, and a month later, the administration postponed until 2015 a mandate that larger employers offer health insurance. that is "the wall street journal." let's take a quick look at our facebook comments. christian says, people at a lot of fear and propaganda scare them of having 30 million

uninsured people get coverage. now with those insured it would generate billions in revenue. it's making people fiscally responsible. to waldorf, maryland on the independent line. >> thank you for taking my call. my question/comment is, the naming of the affordable care act, it depends on whose perspective you are talking about. currently a healthy 30-year-old and one of the southern states, i have to pay $450. an individual with subsidies will be paying $2,700 for coverage. the mandate that everyone buys insurance is basically saying that young people have to buy

insurance to offset the cost of and help the people. how is that fair and how is it called affordable when for certain individuals, the actual cost is going up? >> are you currently covered by health care plan? >> i am. we have watched our premiums go up and our services declined as a result of things basically coming into effect. >> thanks for joining the conversation. a question or comment on the democrats' line. >> i have a catastrophic illness and i want to comment on the new health care. i think is a wonderful. i think is still a step in the right direction.

i have medicare right now and i have bluecross-blueshield federal, which congressmen have. it is wonderful. i pay like half of what i pay for bluecross-blueshield. it's the same rate that medicare gets. that pay less than what i pay them. i think as americans we should accept what the new health care is because we have in massachusetts, and it works. we must continue to investigate the insurance companies and see if we can get a better plan. i would be willing to pay what i've paid bluecross that blueshield a month. plus more if everyone was covered. >> you are in massachusetts, so if your situation better because of the health care law passed their when mitt romney was

governor, or because of now the passage of the affordable care act? >> i have always had health insurance, but i see from my family, i have a daughter who was out of work this year and she lost her health care. she can get health care under the massachusetts plan at a reasonable rate. this is a good plan, what obama has done. >> it is not only government agencies trying to figure out the implementation of the health care plan. we look at same sex marriage and how that is affecting implementation in things like social security and changes in the tax code. here is the reporting from the washington times. the headline is pentagon to give benefits to unmarried days in september. as long as they present a valid

marriage certificate to the proper authorities, the pentagon will provide leave to same-sex couples who travel to state that permits a marriage so that they may wed. defense secretary chuck hagel said that all military spouses would begin receiving the same benefits, regardless of sexual orientation. back to the issue of the affordable care act, the health care law of 2010. brian in arkansas, republican caller, welcome, sir. >> i have a statement and then a question. first of all, i am against the affordable care act. i don't think people understand what they are getting into. the obama administration has already made it clear they are going to go to a single payer

system. people are standing in line waiting to get into -- they are going to be sorry that this ever came down the road. i question is, and maybe you can help me, the affordable care act, one of the benefits that has been touted is that young people get to stay on their parents' health care until they are 26. >> right. >> they are counting on young people to help pay for this thing. i don't understand how that squares, because when you are 18-26, you are at your help is. >> so you assume it would make sense your premiums would be low. >> it seems to me like taking away eight years of young people helping to pay for that -- i just don't understand. it seems like the two principals work against each other.

>> do you have kids who are of that age who were still on your policy? >> both of my kids were on my policy until there were 18 years old. >> what did they do back then when they turned 18 to get covered for health insurance? >> they went without health insurance for a while. a policy back then would not allow my kids to stay on my policy once they reached 18 years old.

but now they are allowed to stay on that until they are 26. it seems to me they are shooting themselves in the foot by allowing young people to stay on their parents healthcare until they are 26 years old. thanks for calling in. new jersey, democratic caller. i think i punched the wrong one. are you there? independent line, michael on the independent line. where are you calling from? calling from west virginia. i have a question. with obama care, i work and i have worked all my life. i don't have health insurance. i have not been in the hospital for years. because i work safely. what about these people that do not work. are we paying for them? are we paying for them, is what i am asking?

i am going to be paying $35 a week. that is taking a lot of money out of my check and i am just barely trying to make it. what about these people on welfare and all of that? host: there is the story about the tax credits that are due some folks below a certain income level. we will try to get that to you in a moment. we want to hear from tom cole, one of the many members doing town halls. tweets andme of the see what is going on as they returned to their home districts. this one is from bill johnson who is a republican in ohio. at the very end, this is one of those short video clips he has attached to his tweet. ryan coming into the picture. a bit of a pipe partisan meeting -- a bipartisan meeting. pelosi tweeted earlier about

russia's decision -- to threaten world's best athletes. the senator from colorado says, good to meet with members of the greater denver ministerial alliance. longole held a very town hall meeting in oklahoma. among the issues that came up with the health care law. here is what he had to say. [video clip] the president is getting around these orders by executive actions. why is congress not filing a lawsuit? in some cases we are. the attorney general of the united states -- we filed against him and a contempt of court case. we have multiple subpoenas to force testimony. so there is legal action underway.

there are also things congress can do in terms of not approving presidential appointees. there are things he can do in terms of withholding funding. we have done some of that in some areas, are gingerly where obama care is concerned. there is a constant struggle between the executive branch. i agree with your point. i think the president has more i recall,resident operated outside the normal legislative framework since he lost control of the house and the senate. and examples, i can give legion. we went to war in libya, i would consider it more. when you fire 212 tomahawk missiles and fly 1000 combat sorties, the guys on the other side think it is a war. never was approved by congress kerry not a dime voted for it. if george w. bush had done that, we would have had grounds for impeachment. -- cries for impeachment. we had laws that were

unilaterally suspended by the president. there is a variety of issues like that where he has gone outside. so we have tension within our system, struggles between congress and the president but this one is very serious. but there will be legal cases. i am going to try and bounce around a little bit, but we will get to everybody. we are going to wear will's legs out. >> i was concerned to find out you were not in support of making the continuing resolution contingent upon removing what optional spending you can remove on obama care. i feel very strongly. from a point ofk view. two weeks ago today, my husband and i paid in cash for our son to have major surgery. four hour procedure. that is the price i pay for the liberty of my children. i am self-employed.

i understand the consequences and i have limited options on insurance. i understand that i paid for a limited coverage, the limited i can expose so i do not pay $1000 a month. i do not look for the government for recourse on that. we are individuals who are responsible and we will make that sacrifice. even if you do not believe in your heart it will pass or two, it is appropriate, you need to represent us and we're tired of having -- [applause] >> great question and i appreciated very much. i do try to represent people here. let me walk -- first of all do i want to defund obama care? absolutely. i reported 40 times to delay it. we have been able to pass seven pieces of legislation. if you are a small business owner, you do not have to file a

purchase.ery $600 those of you, there was a part of this that was an assisted living program that was financially un sustainable. even the democrats, after they look at the financing, after they passed it, we were able to get that through. i think that there are parts of it like the tax on medical devices. can you imagine that we will give you healthcare by taxing your oxygen tank or your artificial? limb? the question is, do you want to shut down the government if you think that will achieve it? i understand that. let me talk to you about the consequences of what a complete government shutdown is. number one, that means your troops in the field do not get paid. >> [murmuring] >> i'm sorry. of course i would not do that, but that what happened.

i listen to your question i will let you have the microphone again if you want to. let me finish answering and then you are free to follow-up. that's true. we have four veteran centers in this district. the00 civilian workers at air force base that are being furloughed. we have 3000 or 4000 in fort sil l. just because you shut down the government does not mean the other side has to give in. it does not mean that the senate has to pass legislation. we can pass that, send it to the senate, the senate will re-fund obama care, send it back to us. then it would be up to us if we rejected that to shut down the government. i think politically that is a dangerous thing to do. and i do not think it will work. if it works, that is one thing. but i don't think it will.

i think it will put millions of people's honor work and will damage the economy and hurt innocent people. we will give you the mike back, so you have the chance to respond. >> i understand that but i think it is a false argument. the house could pass two versions, a continuing resolution that excludes obama care that has that. granted, the senate, we know what they're going to do. we do. obamacare was passed against the will of the people. we look to our supreme court to step in. they failed us. we look to our congressmen to do that, and to your credit 40 times you guys have said get rid of it. insanity definition is that we keep doing the same thing again. that is not going to cut it. so this is our last chance, and it is more than just who's going to win the political power play if we shut down government? it will be what will the future

of our country look like in a decade. >> i agree. >> look at social security. i think that is worth that risk. i also do not think it would come to that. >> i think it would come to that. if if i can finish my point, i think it would come to that. and i do not think it would work. look, we can do as you suggest. that is no problem passing the original bill without it very satisfying, but it is not going anyplace in the senate. it is going to come back. thinkt point, i really do about the consequences of this kind of stuff in terms of people and veterans facilities. i know you do, too. i agree that this was passed against the will of the american people. it has never been a poll that said it was popular. but the american people do not give us the presidency or the

senate. we lost ground and the senate. the house is the last thing between a replay of 2009, which is what we would see if there is total democratic control in congress. check, trade and card and an expansion of the discretionary part of the budget. those things will happen. i will take what you have to say very carefully and consider it. i suspect we will have a lot of discussions about this, but i do not want to be disingenuous and tell you that i think shutting down the government is a good idea, because i do not. i would be dishonest if i told you i'm a again, it would work. i don't think james langford or tom coburn are dangerous liberals, who also feel very strong about it. happen to bewho around for the last shutdown. if it would work, that is one thing, but i think it is very high risk and it is very reckless with people whose

who are on the line and is our security as well. i think it is very damaging. i will be a hard sell on that, but i will keep listening and we will see what the legislative options are in september. cole from last week. then one of the number of town halls we are covering. we do these c-span town halls tuesday, wednesday, and thursday. the story in "national j ournal." they write, with congress into the second week of its break, reports have begun to surface of clashes between lawmakers and activists of all ideologies. while the action have been louder than in past years, plenty of lawmakers are getting an earful. one constituent told his

conversation, we are dying are here because republicans are being too nice to president obama. heritage action is leading a tourd obamacare town hall led by jim demint. the 9 stop tour begins next monday in fayetteville, arkansas. texas, isof expected to join the tour in dallas. some of our follow-up to a caller from west virginia, had a question about those who won't be able to afford it, and how they are going to get healthcare coverage. this is about the tax credit p arart of the 2010 health care law. the average health insurance tax credit for obama care said to be $2700.

they write that americans to buy health insurance outside their jobs can expect a tax cut of nearly $2700 to help them obtain the coverage on the new state insurance marketplace according to an analysis i've been nine partisan kaiser -- the non partisan kaiser family foundation. 26 million low and moderate income people will be eligible for the tax credits to pay for individual coverage on their state marketplaces. the shopping malls created by the affordable care act. that is from the mcclatchy newspapers across the country. back to another caller, a caller from north carolina, he was aski ng about finding out about health insurance in his state. this is from the state health department in north carolina. i will point out the dhhs customer service in north carolina. toll free 1-800-662-7030.

hope you can find what you need to. let's get back to your calls and comments on the implementation of the health care law. bakersfield california. it is debbie on the republican line. a couple of comments. we paid $15,000 last year for our insurance. my son turned 18. he had to go off my husband's plan, because he was not going to college. lsatast year, there was some plan to work, my eldest is 27. i'm on medicare and i have a supplement. my husband, -- they were offer ing kaiser, and it was expensive. it is cheaper to buy an independent plant. i hear that in obama care you

compare apples to apples. i am able to do that at eins urance.com. you can pull up whatever deductible you want to pay. and compare. we got a planw for my husband and our youngest son through blue cross. a couple of years ago it was two of60 a month for the them. once obama care past it is $567 a month. is the same plan. but since the passage of the law that has gone up? caller: it has gone up quite a bit. i am on medicare and mine has gone up quite a bit. what i paid for generic drugs was $6.00. i paid extra to get generic. my drugs have gone up to $12.00 a month. so everything has gone up since

obama care has taken over. host: you mention shopping on einsurance.com. these are not the state exchanges that california will set up. caller: this is something that has been around. host: any word of california is going to do that and if so, is that going to help you situation any, do you think? caller: i have not heard anything. the only thing that would help us -- the only thing i know that would help is the pre-existing condition. fever whichr valley is quite common and i have lup us. i am pretty much covered with medicare and my supplement. other than they keep raising the rates to pay for obama care. my youngest son is in the military so they have taken them off my husband plan. host: this was the 18-year-old?

caller: he just turned 20 in basic training. him off.ook year, when you get the booklet, it says in their why the rates are going up to cover people that are not insured when they enter the emergency rooms. i have also looked up to see what kind of plans there are for people who do not have insurance. especially in california, there are hundreds of different kinds of plans. several -- through the county. they have programs for native americans, all kinds of different things. healthy families, healthy babies. there are so many things. i gets me when they say there are people that do not have insurance. host: let's check a couple of

posts on facebook. diane says, what are you going to change the name from affordable care act. affordable is an oxymoron. for what percentage of the population is it affordable? blake says, why won't the conservatives work with democrats to fix the kinks? democrats have tried to resolve mandating implementation problems. democrats prefer single payor. when hillary is president, single payer will be passed. if conservatives do not want single payer, david better straighten up. -- they had better straighten up. host: here is a little bit from a hearing recently with paul ryan -- guest[video clip] >> the clawback is only a person who is eligible forthey're incoe year in which the subsidy takes

place. but if a person, this is your law, if a person is a subsidy they are not eligible for, which clearly will be the case if your major enforcement tool, the employer mandate is not in place, the law requires you clawback 100% of that subsidy. >> i apologize. of the hypothetical that you gave, it had a lot of moving pieces, but you are correct. one question i have is that we have discovered that this individual got an inappropriate subsidy. so we have made some connection with their employer to learn that information. >> which will be 2015 at the earliest. >> we could learn it in 2015. we will get the employer report in 2016. either way, we will make the efforts to validate the effective coverage for each individual receiving a subsidy. will get two years of a subsidy.

you will have to tax that back in two years time to all of it. that is the law. >> we are going to help the individual at the front and when they are filling out their taxes and navigating through the exchange to understand whether they have an employer-provided plane. >> if you do not have an employer mandate and you do not verify this, to you're going to have a lot of people getting subsidies they are not supposed to get. then you're going to hit them with the tax bill in two years to claw it back. i yield back. host: recent ways and means committee hearing kerry all of that in our video library -- all of that in our video library. james, good evening. independent line. caller: let me give a brief introduction to my experience before i make my comment. i work for the federal government from the time i was 16 years old in high school and,g world waar ii

subsequently, in the military, in the air force, and then in the military for the defense department. i have three decades of unpaid elected and appointed positions with the municipal government in massachusetts, both in the legislative and in the executive branches and also in the advisory positions. i have background in mathematics and research and currently working still at 85 in i.t. analysis. i'm a published poet. patents and technical publications. with respect to the health issue, i did read when it first came out, because i am computer literate, i did read the bill. i downloaded it onto my computer. it is still there, and found some beautiful things in it, and

some things which were totally ed youistent, like it show could not maintain your health insurance if the policy were all .hanged by the provider with respect to health, people have ignored in this debate that issue that health depends not only on medical care, which is prenatal and postnatal, but also upon food and shelter. --, for a final comment companies cover it, prenatal care is available and guaranteed, how in the world which islow abortion, totally antithetical to prenatal care? host: thanks for your call this evening. james from massachusetts.

we're talking about the implementation of the affordable care act, also known as obama care by some. taking your phone calls, facebook posts and tweets. when congress returns, a number of issues on the plate, including an unfinished farmville. bloomberg writes about that. their headline is "footstamps cut by by republicans with voters on rolls." with foodcounties wonp -- mitt romney 213 of them in last year's election. countyin a kentucky that has the the largest proportion of food stamp recipients. the say the program has become a target for republicans in their

ongoing fight with president obama and other democrats over reducing federal budget deficits. on the from bloomberg yet to be resolved problem with the food stamp program. next up we hear from loreen on our democrats line. welcome. make sure you mute your television. i'm going to put you on hold. go to naples, florida. republican line. beverly? caller: hello. thank you for your time. i just wanted to share my experience. i am a small business person in naples, florida. i am 59. i am a cancer survivor. when i had the opportunity to care pre- the obama existing insurance, i gave up my insurance with a $10,000 adaptable that was very isked goingnd r

without insurance to qualify for the program. i was entered into the program last year given an opportunity to have insurance for $375 a month, with the normal co-pay and a normal adaptable of $2500 for the year. in january i received a letter that said, a pre-existing condition program was no longer affordable for the government, enrollees.ad 100,000 my rate increased to $450, my co -pay has increased and my deductible increased to $6500. host: this is a private health insurance program or through the state of florida and? caller: the government's pre- existing, this is president obama's pre-existing health care plan.

100,000 of the few privileged people who are allowed to enter this program, which is now being closed because the government can no longer afford the program. we have been told, and i have a letter i can show you that says the program is being closed. as of october, i have to go out to the public forum and shop for insurance. so it's -- my question is, if the government, and it is called cpip. it is the government pre- existing insurance. now when i go to the doctors, they want their money up front most of them. the ones i was already getting care from last year, i'm continuing to get care from. this year, if i want to go to a new doctor, we want our fee up front.

most of the time that is $250 to go to a doctor sai. i can't do that. i am a small business person and grateful to be alive. that program's being closed out. host: i'm sorry, go ahead with your question, beverly. caller: if the government can no longer afford to sustain a program where people pay -- month, and pay for my deductible and medicines. the deductible is high. if the government can no longer peopleto sustain 100,000 in that program, how in the world are they going to of the unitedrest states of america with a large population of people who do not work and their insurance when they cannot afford to keep the program going for 100,000 people

who are in it who are paying to the in it? host: appreciate your joining us. some comments on twitter. this one is from maxwell who ofs, why will no one speak medicare, medicaid, v.a., sus e- security and how they prove just one more program. and this from steve. do not wait for a.c.a. to plan your health insurance needs. see a license health insurance agent in your hometown. loreen, you are on the air. caller: since the obama care has taken effect, i have a problem. my granddaughter. i raised her. and we were told under the impression that she would get medical help under my medical benefit. and say, she has graduated from school. they have credited her completely off medical. she does not get nothing from

medical period. she's in need. the doctor's office stated she needs medical treatment for her asthma. severe allergies and things. and she has been told by the state of kansas that she has to get pregnant or be having a baby to get any kind of medical help. host: this is state medical insurance you are talking about? caller: yes, it is the same medical thing. she has been completely opted out. she is going to community college and working part-time. the doctor gave her a number and they quoted her $80 a month. she is only working part-time and going to school full-time. host: more of your calls coming up as we take your impressions of the implementation of the 2010 healthcare law. we continue to take your phone calls, facebook posts, and tweets.

looking at some other news here, jesse jackson junior, the chicago congressman, was sentenced today according to the "chicago tribune" to 30 months behind bars. they write that in addition to the 2.5 years in prison, jackson junior was sentenced to three years of supervised release. sandi jackson was ordered to serve 12 months. the headline and politico says mike kinsey is attending a new york meeting about politics. the wyoming republican facing a primary challenge from dick cheney's daughter. he is heading to new york next month to face conservative donors.

a gathering known as the new york meeting which puts candidates, elected officials, and others in front of a large gathering for potential supporters. he will appear at that meeting on september 16, indicating a fresh level of engagement for enzi. the primary race is being closely watched. liz cheney is familiar to a number of donors. the death toll in the violence of egypt. the associated press reporting the death toll so far is 278, including 235 civilians -- the death toll so far is 278, including 235 civilians. in the early afternoon, secretary of state john kerry came to the briefing room at the state department and spoke to reporters and issued his statement on what is going on in egypt. here's what he had to say.[video clip]

>> sorry to keep you waiting, folks. i will make a statement, and then jen will stay and answer questions and brief everyone. the united states strongly tod'd bloodshed across egypt. it is a serious blow to reconciliation, and the egyptian people's hopes for transition towards democracy and inclusion. in the past week at every occasion -- perhaps even more than the past week -- we and others have urged the government to respect the rights of free assembly and of free expression. we have also urged all parties to resolve this impasse peacefully and underscored that demonstrators should avoid violence and incitement. today's events are deplorable,

and they run counter to egyptian aspirations for peace, inclusion, and genuine democracy. egypt since inside and outside of the government need to take a step act. they need to calm the situation and avoid further loss of life. we also strongly oppose a return to a state of emergency law, and we call on the government to respect basic human rights including freedom, peaceful assembly and due process under the law. we believe the state of emergency should end as soon as possible. violence is simply not a solution in egypt or anywhere else. violence will not create a roadmap for egypt's future. violence only impedes the transition to an inclusive civilian government, a government chosen in free and fair elections that governs democratically, consistent with the goals of the egyptian

revolution, and violence and continued political polarization will only further terror the egyptian economy apart, prevent it from growing, providing the jobs and the future that the people of egypt wants so badly. the united states strongly supports the egyptian people's hope for a prompt and sustainable transition to an inclusive tolerant civilian-led democracy. deputy secretary of state earns burns together with our eu colleagues provided construction ideas and left them on the table during our talks in cairo last week. i believe they know full well what a constructive process would look like. the interim government and the military, which together possess the preponderance of power in this confrontation, have a unique responsibility to prevent further violence and to offer

constructive options for an inclusive, peaceful process across the entire political spectrum. this includes amending the constitution, holding parliamentary and presidential elections, which the interim government itself has called for. all the other parties, all the opposition, all of civil society, all parties also share a responsibility to avoid violence and to participate in a productive path towards a political solution. there will not be a solution through further polarization. there can only be a political solution by bringing people together with a political solution, so this is a pivotal moment for all egyptians. the path towards violence leads only to greater instability, economic disaster, and suffering. the only sustainable path for either side is one towards a political solution.

i am convinced from my conversations today with a number of foreign ministers including the foreign minister of egypt -- i am convinced that that path is in fact still open, and it is possible, though it has been made much, much harder, much more complicated by the events of today. the promise of the 2011 revolution has simply never been fully realized, and the final outcome of that revolution has not yet in society -- has not yet been decided. it will be shaped in the hours ahead, in the days ahead. it will be shaped by the decisions which all of egypt's political leaders make now and in these days ahead. the world is closely watching egypt and is deeply concerned about the events we have witnessed today. the united states remains at the ready to work with all of the parties and with our partners and with others around the world in order to help achieve

peaceful democratically -- a peaceful, democratic way forward. now jen will be happy to answer any questions. thanks. >> will there be any consequences for the military? >> i will be back in just a few minutes. >> secretary of state john kerry earlier today. since his comments, the death toll today, two hundred 78 according to the associated press. welcome back to c-span's townhall. we spent a couple of hours every tuesday, wednesday, and thursday while congress is in recess talking about politics and public policy issues. tonight, spending time looking at the affordable health care act and its implementation. joining us, a health policy report of -- reporter for kaiser health news. thanks for being with us. >> my pleasure. >> this is the area you focus in.

let's look at the states. was sort of budget challenges are you hearing from states across the country and their implementation of the healthcare exchanges in particular in those states? >> for the states that are doing their own expansion, of which there are about 15 and the district of columbia, there is almost unlimited money for them to implement these exchanges. for them, they have lots of money owing from washington to help them hire armies of people to go out to enroll people, fulfill the databases, do all the work they need to do to spend on advertising, for instance. in the states where the federal government is doing most of the heavy lifting, those states are struggling because there's a very limited amount of money that those states can access -- or that the federal government, rather, can access. i think there's concern in places like texas, for instance, where the federal government is leading the charge and building the exchange that there will be far fewer government resources

to be able to draw people into the site. because of that, you are seeing other groups step in like enroll america, which has hired something like 3000 people, volunteers and hired staff, to essentially go to some target states like texas or florida that are not building their own exchanges, and to essentially knock on doors and ask people what their status is, and if they are uninsured, they are trying to help them figure out how they can get insurance on october 1. >> how many stages are choosing to do open exchanges? how many are saying no thank you? >> all states will have exchanges. it does not matter whether or not the state wants it or not. they are going to get it. it is just a matter of who builds it. there are about 17 states, including d.c., building their own. in some cases, they are very robust, like in california.

the federal government is doing more than 27 states, and there is sort of a hybrid called a partnership model that the feds and the state's are working together in about seven states. >> we got a call earlier a short while ago from california, who had used a number of years ago e-insurance exchange. what will it look like compared to something like that? >> i cannot say for sure what look like, but it will be similar in concept. it will not be as easy as buying. you will have to have financial information. it would be a little like finder of file your taxes online. you will walk through the process. you will put down your income, the number of people in your household, where you live because the price you pay for insurance depends on the region where you are.

in california, we have a number of regions. you will walk through that, and then it will determine that you are in a household that earns below a certain threshold, where you would actually qualify for a subsidy. the website, if it is doing its job, will come back and say, "here are the plans that are available and here is what you're subsidy will look like." for people who are below 138% of the poverty level and qualify for the medicaid expansion, you would also be able to essentially have a handoff between the exchange website and your state medicaid program. >> sarah is a former health reporter for kqed in california. on those states where the federal government is implementing the exchange, are you hearing any stories of us

back or lack of cooperation between those efforts and the state government -- of pushback or lack of cooperation? >> i'm not hearing that. there were concerns the federal government would need access to some of the state medicaid aid a basis -- medicaid databases, and it will be clumsy for a while. that is for certain. but the software and the kind of infrastructure that is needed are pretty similar in the states that are doing federal partnership and those that are not. we have seen, however, already some states -- one state, actually, that has come out and said they are going to be ready on october 1 to sign people up, but the website will not be ready, so you will need help from navigators and insurance brokers to actually sign up for the coverage.

the coverage does not become active until january 1, so everyone is very focused on this october 1 deadline because that is the beginning of the enrollment period, but people actually have several months into next year to enroll. even in the states where people are doing their own work, we will see a lot of people saying they are not ready. >> none of the delays or postponements the administration has announced have affected exchanges. to clarify, actually, because you brought up the point about these delays we keep hearing about, the one that we talked about yesterday, which my colleague reported back in april, was essentially -- it actually had nothing to do with the exchanges. there is an out of rocket attacks on how much people have to pay for their total out-of- pocket expenses, both medical

expenses as well as pharmaceutical expenses. at $6,300 a year for individuals, and about $12,700 for a family. if you buy your insurance on the exchange, starting january 1, that will be in effect. whatever you pay, you will pay your premium, and in addition to that, you will not be asked to pay out-of-pocket more than $6,350 or an individual and family coverage. what got delayed is the application of that provision to employer-sponsored plans. it is really only for people who generally work for large employers where you may have a benefit manager who manages the pharmacy, and then you have the insurance company that handles the doctors visits, that kind of thing. what the insurers were saying and employers themselves were saying was the systems have long been so fragmented that essentially, we are not ready yet. there are groups from the

patient advocacy side who say that they have had the last three years to do this and there should be no excuse, and there are people who need expensive treatments who will not have that consumer protection for an extra year, the companies are essentially saying they are just not ready yet. >> to the companies you the start of the exchanges as an increase business opportunity. >> i think it depends on which company you are. we have seen a lot of companies coming to the marketplace here. some have already existed. we saw a lot of people angling to try to get on the california exchange. there are a number of applications, and the state only excepted a small percentage of them. i think it depends on what state you are in. if you are in a state like wyoming that has half a million people, that is not a lot of business for you to go after. it has really been state by state or even in a sense region

by region within a state, a business decision. >> sarah is with kaiser health news, and she covers the implementation of the healthcare law, in particular focusing on states. can you take a couple of comments from callers? >> absolutely. >> great. let's go to vincent who has been waiting in miami. go ahead with your question or comment. >> if you get the opportunity, i would love to see thom hartmann on one of your shows. i get the opportunity to watch bartlett and steele, and they really explain why it is so expensive to do anything in the medical industry. the problem i have is the fact that in my state, florida governor rick scott stole a lot of money from the government as far as the medicaid, medicare fraud. in my state, my representative has voted against obamacare, but at the same time, she is against

us having any relations with cuba, but at the same time, russia right now is saying that gay people who come to the russian olympics are going to be discriminated against. >> let's focus on the issue of the implementation in florida. what can you tell us? >> it is sort of an interesting case because you had a governor who was initially opposed to the healthcare law, but after looking at the numbers, he said, in terms of how much money would come into the state, it is something he actually advocated for. it is in the legislature, but the legislature has so far denied his request to do that. florida is one of the states where you will have considerably large numbers of people who will not qualify for the medicaid expansion, but those who are earning more than 100% of the poverty level -- they will be able to go on the exchanges and receive what will likely be a

pretty significant subsidy. the problem, however, is for the people who are essentially at zero percent of the poverty level, so they are essentially indigent. they now have this new doughnut hole that as a result of the supreme court's decision to allow medicaid to be an option for the state. >> we go next to staten island, new york. lois is on the line. >> how are you doing, sarah? me and my coworkers are very confused. we have private insurance union contracts, but we are a small group. we are in need of jobs. we are very skillful. our healthcare just keeps going up and up and up erie it we work for a billion-dollar corporation. people keep getting these million dollar bonuses, but every contract, our health insurance skyrockets. it has tripled since i have been here seven years ago. obama said it would be more affordable we were going to be able to keep it.

it has gotten worse. coverage has been worse. co-pays are higher. i just want to know -- i do not have time to read that huge obamacare act. nobody does. all we do is work to pay off these fees, surcharges, taxes, everything. i want to know what is there to help the middle-class blue- collar workers because we are very confused. thank you. >> thank you. >> the affordable care act -- i can't talk about some of the cost-containment provisions in a moment, but it is like what massachusetts did, which was saying, "let's get everybody in a problem of 50 million uninsured americans, so let's get everybody in the pool first, and then we will deal with the cost issue, and that is essentially what massachusetts did. it is now in its third iteration of the massachusetts expansion, and i think there is a sense that national expansion will follow a similar trajectory.

i can tell you that healthcare costs, of course, have been rising above inflation for many, many, many years for a variety of reasons, including, you know, tremendous innovation of the united states and americans hunger for those new therapies. everything in the united dates is much more expensive than it is and any other country. from an mri to a hospital stay to childbirth. we spend a lot more on healthcare. we pay our physicians and a lot more. there's a lot of reasons for why the united states is so expensive. in terms of what the affordable care act does to address some of those things and whether or not that shows up in premiums, which is many questions down the road i think it is an open question. there's a lot of work, actually, i should say, in medicare, that has the opportunity to go a

separate direction for containing healthcare costs in the united states. just one example i give you is there are hospitals in the u.s. because of the affordable care act that are penalized for what are considered unnecessary readmissions. one of my colleagues has done a lot of writing on this where if somebody leaves the hospital, and they come back within 30 days for something that the hospital really should have been able to handle, then they are penalized. we are seeing that this is having an effect on hospital behavior. there's other things in the affordable care act, particularly around medicare, that are forcing hospitals in particular to deal with some of the pricier things in the medicare system. the idea, of course, is that the private insurance industry looks to medicare to set examples. the idea is that medicare will

lay some crumbs, and private insurance will follow. i do not think the levers are in a place yet to figure out how we are going to drive down premiums. in california, we saw the premium come in significantly lower. thousands and thousands of dollars lower than what we expected. some of the smaller companies are in this position where they will have to decide whether or not they want to stick together and continue to get insurance through these new small business exchanges, basically, and take a tax credit for reviving the insurance or whether or not they want to not offer insurance at all and have each person essentially go on their own to the exchange and see if they could get a better deal. >> let's get one more call for sarah varney. this time from pennsylvania. bill is on our republican line. you are on the air. go ahead.

>> i am almost 76 years old, and i have lost -- that's not what i'm really calling about. the person with the help tie in the irs with obamacare is the same person who took the fifth amendment when she talked about targeting opponents of the obama administration. how do we know she will fairly handle this job? >> you are talking about lois lerner, the irs official? >> party scandal. >> bill, thanks for your call. let's end on that in terms of the tax implications for obamacare, for the healthcare law. what will people notice most once the law is fully implemented? where is it likely to help or hurt people most?

>> he is absolutely right that the irs has been the linchpin in all of this in trying to figure out if you qualify for subsidies. you go onto the exchange and put in your estimated income for the coming year. those are based on your estimates. if you earn more money, the subsidy goes down proportionately. if you earn less money, the subsidy goes up proportionately. it is absolutely true the irs plays a big role in figuring out how much people will ultimately pay out of their pocket. i think there's a lot of questions. i think it will be very messy for the first couple of years, for sure. people at the irs are working a lot on this and trying to figure out if they have the right data, through this data hub that the federal government is

constructing to make sure that they can make those decisions pretty quickly. >> sarah varney, one of several kaiser health news reporters joining us via skype. thanks so much for being with us. >> my pleasure. have a good evening. >> we will get back to your calls and comments as we continue to look at the implementation of the healthcare law. just wrapped up a final question about the irs and some of the tax implement -- tax implications of that. the founder of americans for tax reform, grover norquist, was our guest this week on "washington journal" with his own thoughts on the law. >> clearly, this bill, the obama care legislation, was porly written, sloppily put together. we are finding all sorts of problems. max baucus, the finance chair,

democrat from montana, said the whole thing is a train wreck. the president has admitted that big businesses cannot deal with the mandate, so he is giving them a year. it is not clear in the law that the president has that authority. he is just sort of not going to enforce the law that is there. we now have another cap, this is supposed to be one of the benefits. prices were going to stay down. that is being delayed one year. what is to stop it from being delayed one year every year for the next 50 years? one of the people i have been working with that americans for tax reform is the -- is in support of the idea to delay all of obamacare for one year. if it is not ready for prime time, if it is messing stuff up, let's just delay it. small businesses do not get the delay, big businesses do.

individuals do not, big as this is. now, there's another piece that is not working. delay it a year and take a look at what needs to be reformed. >> senate democrats and president obama say that is a no go with them. what is the strategy here? >> i think the president said during his press conference the other day that a normal times, you go to congress and ask for a delay, but these are not normal times because tong chris will not do -- because congress will not do what he wants. the house of representatives passed a law to make legal the delay he wanted, and he said he would veto it. he wants to either enforce the law or not enforce the law as he sees fit. it is a very odd assertion. we do have some situations with, like, the continuing resolution

or the debt ceiling, which continues to go up. congress can say, "look, if you want the debt ceiling increase, we can do that. we gave you the debt ceiling increase before and just made you stop some of the crazier spending. as a result, we are seeing some reduction in the runaway growth of government, so we have made some progress. we need to do something similar with obamacare. just delay the implementation. the taxes, the spending, delay them for a year, take a look at where we are and then move forward. >> grover norquist of americans for tax reform. this is c-span town hall. about another half hour of your

comments and questions on the issue of the implementation of the healthcare law.

hour. [applause] >> thank you. thank you. someone said to me, the only time you really tell the truth is in your novel. so i am afraid am stuck with that. this is a fascinating opportunity for me as a journalist to talk to really the two people i most like to quiz on with that country is going. i am grateful for the opportunity to do that, and i

want to start with in a sense the fundamental question that makes all of us cared deeply, anxiously about pakistan. summon up with the phrase that many americans use that this is potentially the most dangerous country on earth in terms of the potential risk of nuclear weapons getting out, absolutely catastrophic events. and so i want to ask you to start, and we will get to some what more detailed questions later, but i would ask you to start in saying, first, did you think that assessment of pakistan is correct? second, how overtime would you see u.s. policy reducing that danger? what would a relationship with pakistan ten years from now looks like where it wouldn't say

that? would not say pakistan, exit to a threat in the same sentence. >> thank you. thank you for letting me be here. a grown-up and i was a an officer reading his novels and took comfort in the fact that when we went into the real world it could not be as hard. he understated. i think the question of whether pakistan is maybe the most dangerous place for the world, the answer is yes in my view, at least right now, but it is not of pakistan's fault, not a series of bad decisions. part of it is geography and part of it is history. if you look at that location, particularly going back to that great cain and post 1947 as an independent nation, its relationship with india has been difficult, but in its neighbors are not particularly easy to be around either. where it fits in the world is difficult. then there are a number of underlying problems that that there no matter what.

economic problems, problems of water, problems of the electricity that can be faxed but still a difficult problems and would be for any government in any country. there are new or problems and an internal set of insurgencies. more than one, the existence of al qaeda. there is the pakistan me taliban and internal political challenges that pakistan faces sitting at this critical but session with about 180 million people. the nexus between obviously india and in much of the rest of the region. and so i think that -- and then, of course, you turn a clear weapons on top of it. even if she turned a clear weapons away my answer would probably still be yes. o we need to do is make sure we look at all the factors. pakistan is a complex system, very complex equation that i could never solve. too many variables. if he tried to grab one and say

the problem is the army, the problem is al qaeda, your way oversimplifying. i think that as we go forward as americans, what we need to do is deal with pakistan in a complex way. one of the things they used to discipline me is we would go in 2014, 2005, to deal with the president and go in the talking points in just 88, al qaeda, al qaeda. and pakistan niece, very close friends of mine would say we have a bunch of problems. al qaeda is about ten. help us with all of them so that we can help you with that one. >> let me turn to the ambassador has brought -- thought as deeply about his country as anyone i know. when you hear american say it, as they so often do, what do you think? do you share that evaluation?

i will ask you, maybe the general could come back in on this. it is sometimes said that nuclear weapons are under much greater control, much better command-and-control than americans rail lines. to that extent we should ratchet back our anxiety of little bit. this is a better control symptom structure and we think. >> the first question is and do believe that pakistan is a dangerous part. my second part of that is not for the american -- reasons the americans think it is. general michael gasol and many other generals, american diplomats going back to john foster dulles, and they believed pakistan officials. america's problem. pakistan's problem.

and why is pakistan a problem? here is the reason. a country that was created with very little prior discussion in the matter. people forget. in egypt for 5,000 years. several centuries, millennium. twenty-one to 66 years old, so therefore it has essentially a lot more than it has actual challenges. i understand that the pakistan is concerned about india, but as a pakistan and like a history. i know that the american relationship with history is very unusual. the only country in the world where some be says that history, he means that development. [laughter] -- important to understand. it has not been dispensable.

let's be real about that. afghanistan is too weak and too poor. so most of the problems that pakistan sees itself and is a psychological rather than real. the real problems are we have amelie 180 million people, to london to million according to this morning's estimates based on the population growth. highest population growth rate in that region. half the population is below the age of 21. one-third of them will never see the side of any school. many school. one-third. one-third of the population is below the poverty line. another one-third is just above the. and yet the country, and i'm the only pakistan the who has had to say that look, the new clear weapons should have made as

secure. we are now like the guy who keeps buying guns to try and protect itself. then i can't sleep because i'm afraid someone will steal my gun . some now pakistan has created this new site. so the real fight is essentially from syria to come to terms with this charter fee in history and having a direction for it nation. a new vision for pakistan. tune in focus in words. it -- they get into school. keep the knicks. sign up with some type of international agreement that will make sure that bleeped are not looked upon as a pariah. they make it available to us and we will use it.

that insecurity makes people think the al qaeda, well, how can we use them against our enemy. that is why we have the into related problem pakistan. so americans sometimes don't. >> i was worried before. now i'm really worried. i mean, you cannot be ambassador just described a country with a deep psychosis. it has nuclear weapons. the question that a generation of american policy makers has been asking is how we talked to a country that has this kind of psychosis, this anxiety about its relationship with america, its mission to put in the of. so many different ways have been tried. ..

here is what i don't think we should do. i think we have engaged with pakistan and its best mudlick way so what happens is 1971 we have a relationship earlier during the cold war because pakistan's geography and the fact that they were essentially on our side made them very good partners there. when we wanted wet henry

kissinger wanted to go into china they were useful to help him get into china secretly and then we pulled back whenever we had something else to do or encountered frustration and so it's spasmodic. when we go back and each time we go back in with a fairly narrow temporal set of objectives and we try to engage in that without understanding are trying to build a wider relationship. we have done if you really painful things. the press club when it was implemented after the pakistanis went publicly nuclear stop the interaction between militaries essentially so there was a decade when pakistan military leaders didn't come to united states for training. how big of a deal is that? i would go to pakistan when i dealt with pakistani military leaders. they were layered. those who engage with the americans had one view and comfort level and then there was a whole group that had just incredible suspicion and frustratifrustrati on.

i don't believe that what we should do is immediately put our arms around them and say whatever you do is find nor do i believe we should recoil and say because you are dangerous and because you are frustrating our way to not deal with you is to ignore you. it's kind of like covering our eyes and hoping pakistan goes away because when you take your hands off what is there it still is. i think a longer-term, more consistent very realistic policy as the ambassador said we can't solve pakistan's problems but we are a part, sometimes we can be a confidence builder to them to help their confidence with their relationship with india and whatnot so i think we can. >> ambassador haqqani i am remembering the period that you were ambassador seems like pakistan was on the front age every day and part of that was you had a kind of livewire very

high-visibility pakistani ambassador in washington. well you know i want you to talk about the but my question really is this. as we think about a stable and enduring, less, less neurotic u.s.-pakistan relationship is turning the heat down a good idea? if you had to do it again would you turn the heat down be more remote from the pakistani-u.s. news media? when you think about the right way to play that role of ambassador. >> he first of all life didn't do anything wrong. pakistan's point of view and pakistan concerns and america's views about pakistan had to be put out there. what we need is a honest discussion. for example the pakistanis have a legitimate question when they say why has american policy been so spasmodic?

the pakistanis have another question when they say you sometimes give us private assurances that you do not keep. on the nuclear issue let me be very honest when pakistan assumed that line diamond we could go ahead with it, they immediately enforced all the sanctions. many administrations allow congress to regulate the relationship rather than being upfront in saying hey this is not right because the general show the kind of finesse and then in the end afghanistan was over and the congress had to be implemented. have an honest dialogue but then pakistan has to have some honest answers pretty can't say we are not making a bomb and then say by the way we just tested the bomb last weekend. we can't say all some of the blood never heard of him and then have him in pakistan.

i think what we need is more candor in their relationship and is in basinger i did ring that candor. those it islamabad who think that keeping this relationship in the realm of shadows the cia to isi relationship and military-to-military relationship a more functional relationship rather than an understanding of what are we all about. korea has seen less bilateral aid in pakistan and pakistan is the largest recipient of american aid since 1947. $40 billion. what does pakistan have to show for it? the koreans have led the economy because they open their economy. pakistani and american officials me to say to them you know what, the reason we don't come to your country is not because the american government stops them. what is right is you haven't created an environment for them to come. you open up and become less

secure in your way of thinking and you don't reap the benefits in that candor has been missing because of the need-based relationship. we need them for having bases. ironically the pakistanis never gave you the bases. the big basis that the merrick and military -- he let the big picture gets foiled in the process. >> general mcchrystal, we do now have a moment where the page has been turned in pakistan. we have a new government under prime minister nawaz sharif and a whole new set of personnel and a new party and a new way of looking at the u.s. pakistan relationship and some new ideas about india. i would be interested in first

your sense of nawaz sharif as the pakistani leader. i'm going to the ask ambassador haqqani the same thing in your thoughts about where the particular opportunities are in his next period with the leadership in terms of the u.s.. >> i do think we are in a pretty important inflection point driven by a number of circumstances to include the recent election which was the first election in pakistani history from his civilian government to a civilian government. they have never been able to complete a term before so being able to start a tradition of civilian leadership is critical. pakistan in my view cannot continue with on-again off-again military taking over leadership of the country. i think it's simple important inflection point and i think if the role of the military can be shaped into something more appropriate pakistan's military became viewed by many pakistanis with great respect within the military became viewed as the essential organization.

we think of george washington as the essential man. the pakistani military and terminally fused itself is the essential bulwark of pakistani sovereignty pakistani pride in pakistani freedom and there is much less regard for the effectiveness of civilian pakistani government than we would like in a good islands. part of that is because pakistani civilian government has not been -- but now nawaz sharif has the opportunity to potentially like erdogan has done in turkey or other leaders have done to reshape that balance again. now he is going to have to do it not just by controlling the military. i believe and i may have a different view from the ambassador when i deal with general kayani or other military leaders in the pakistani i don't see duplicitous honorable people. i see patriots who see their world through their lens and trying to do the best for their

country. it may be different than what is viewed via others but i view it is pretty genuine. he's going to have to shape than a way that brings us to do a better connection. the question is i don't know him personally. i have read the histories of him when i was spending a lot of time and pakistan. he was not in a position to be around. but we are asking an awful lot of the guy who has a questionable background. >> so, ambassador haqqani one great thing about ambassador haqqani is he knows everybody in pakistani politics and chances are he worked for them at one point in the past so i want to ask you you know a lot about nawaz sharif. what does would you offer about how he can develop a civilian government can't do make it work and in particular what advice would you have about how to deal with the problems that general mcchrystal said. how does he speak to the chief

of army staff general kayani or his successor and make clear this pakistani military isn't going to call the shots now. we have a civilian governmengovernmen t. how does he do that? >> not within e.'s. first of all you must understand that american generals look at pakistani generals and see soldiers. pakistanis especially those imprisoned by generals at one point or another look at them as politicians in uniform. it's a very different perspective. nawaz sharif has to move very carefully. on the one hand he wants to establish civilian supremacy. he used to move two steps forward 2.5 steps backward because he understood the military does have far more influence. for example the pakistani military runs businesses in the american military does not. the pakistani military runs media and has -- that the

american military probably does not. [laughter] >> wait for snowden next week. >> and so the pakistani military knows pakistan's parliament and what pakistan's national interest is. the american military is part of the process of defining american international interest but all of you are part of that process as well. in pakistan the military wants to monopolize the definition of national interest and that is my problem with it. other than that they are very decent people. my father served in the pakistani military. generals who think they can actually determine national interest and they alone can determine that are going to be nawaz sharif's biggest problem. as he tries to -- which personally i think is not necessarily priority but he wants to do it. when he does that he will run into some problems but the

pakistani military soviets to move carefully on that front. >> why would he do that? that is kind of a classic revenge play. the man who kicked me out went to go after him. why did you do that? >> because he is nawaz sharif. that is who nawaz sharif is. i worked with him and when i did not agree with him and left his side he put a black mark i might name and when he got a chance he tried to get even with me on that as well. he's a provincial politician who became national just because there was no alternative at that time. the pakistan will in -- pakistani military and the isi. the supreme court supports them. the fact is that he ran for office in 1990 and that is like a presidential candidate in the united states running for office with cia funding. you would never let that happen or at least not easily.

[laughter] >> so this guy was the military propped him up and then he wanted to secure authority from the military which made him and general musharraf rivals. i think it's a mistake. his priority should be pakistan's internal problems, the economy, the educational system, scaling down the hatred that pakistanis learn from their schools can't the hatred against hindus. there is no such thing as an ex-essential -- existential threat. there might have been a time when the americans are fighting but guess what now the americans are figuring out how to -- that is how the world moves. pakistan, this view that somehow india will always be our enemy is a wrong view.

we need to open up on that and those are the things nawaz sharif should focus on. >> just a quick question to both of you. nawaz sharif is associated with india in the past with the idea of opening to india's famous diplomatic opening and a visit to lahore. a lot of people thought that's the area where you might see significant movement. the relationship between india and pakistan already is better than i think most of their country lies. what do you think about that? is there an opportunity to quickly try to do something? >> my quick answer to that is there is a lot that can be done. as long as the narrative is that these guys never wanted us to be a country and will never let us be a country and their our existential enemies there won't be a move forward. nawaz sharif will be pulled back as residents zardari was. zardari opened up to india in a

big win that beginning in the way it works is you must start floating conspiracy theories start coming. the overwhelming majority of pakistanis to this day did not accept the official version of what happened on 9/11. they are conspiracy theorists and they believe 9/11 was an inside job. they're people who don't believe the americans actually kill bin laden. and i'm talking about 15 to 20% of conspiracy theorists that you have in this country as well. i'm talking about large numbers, 60%, 70%. that needs to be changed. policy change in relation to india otherwise we will have a lot of shaking of hands come to hugging some policy decisions and they will all fall apart within it up with years did a little incident on the border come for some guy got shot and

it all falls apart. this time it needs to be on more solid footing. >> i agree with ambassador, i think he needs do the steps first because they think the additive in the nerd -- attitude and narrative will follow that. there has been talk about lowering our tariffs for india and pakistan on the condition that they increase their trade between the two countries. i think if you force interaction , i don't think you first convince somebody to like like some but he also then they will hang around them. i you forcibly to deal with them and you change attitudes in time. >> i want to change gears just a little bit and i want to ask general mcchrystal to step back to the time that he was the isaf commander in kabul in 2009. as we know general mcchrystal put together a comprehensive strategy that we called the coin

counterintelligence strategy for dealing with the taliban insurgency and stabilizing afghanistan and part of the -- what drove the policy was if we can get afghanistan right we will stabilize pakistan as well. i would like to ask you general mcchrystal, look back at that honestly and critically and we have now had four years of experience with that strategy and i think we would all be really interested in your evaluation of what went the way you thought it would, white as you look back would you do differently, and obviously where do you think we are now as we head toward 2014 and the departure of american combat troops from that country and afghanistan flying on its own? >> first on the counterinsurgency strategy. i have been in afghanistan from 2001 on and had special

operating forces going after al qaeda. before he took over in 2009 i spent most of my time in iraq. i had come to the conclusion from my iraq experienced in my years in afghanistan that the only way to be successful was not to be just enemy focused and killing people because the russians killed 1.2 million afghans and that didn't work. so i became convinced that we had to get something that won the confidence in the support of the afghan people. i had studied it for years but it was proven right in front of my eyes in iraq. i came in the summer of 2009 and the psychological situation in afghanistan was devastating. philosophically we have been there for eight years and these huge expectations which many afghans had we were going to sort things out, had not been met. some of them weren't realistic that the reality was with the west have been able to do was not very effective in what the afghans have done for themselves

was not as effective. so by 2009 they had grown cynical. they were losing hope in the taliban were leveraging that to say luck this thing is not going to work and we are about to do that. the taliban were not popular and they are still not at the very weak sense of government and weak other institutions and the police and militaries gave the sense of gloom and doom. when i took over in december 2000 if that we had to do several things. first we had to change her strategy so we could implement counterinsurgency, we could start getting the support. we can't protect them. everything else to them is irrelevant. we need to change people's confidence. we need to start making people believe that we could and should focus off of the great question mark for me was did we have enough time? america was already tied -- tired of that. pakistan had grown convinced that we were likely to fail in the region. so we were trying to do this against this big wall of

skepticism and so is aidala the afghans it was really the case can the mets win the 69 -- that's a question actively. we have to first prove he could do things on the ground in certain areas and we had to try think age people particularly people like the pakistanis and say things that we can do this. it's in your interest that we succeed because the taliban run afghanistan is the worst possible outcome for pakistani stability. i don't think any of that was wrong. i still believe that assessment was absolutely accurate read what did we do? we went and we pushed. i spent a lot of time in pakistan with general kayani and other leaders to get them to believe that i think and maybe i am pollyanna-ish, i think i've been moving to where they thought we had a chance to be successful but in a one-on-one moment general kayani looked at me and i laid out my strategy and he laid out his and he said stan i think it's right but i

don't think we have enough time. it's the only thing to do but i don't think you will succeed because i don't think you have enough time. what other option that i have except i have been given permission. where did i think it fell short? one, i think a heck of a lot of that succeeded. i think actually afghanistan is a much better place than people think he they can solve their other problems and that the album is credibility and politics. they will achieve that themselves. we can't do that. but we did make some mistakes. i made some mistakes. as we pushed forward one thing is the american people and others like quick successes so if you come in and say you've got to believe i get a call the next day and say did you do it yet? so you just have to believe i can do at, we will do it come cannot that it's done. so there was an expectation that if it didn't happen but that it wasn't going to work and that

was one of the weaknesses of this. that was the problem. i personally didn't navigate d.c. very well as we went and asked for additional forces. when i first got there did one additional forces. we did this big assessment and my staff and i've played it and all kinds of computer games and we laid it out and said the only way he can pull this off as you've got to have enough additional foreign forces to be a bridge force until you build the afghan military up. there is no other way. so i knew going to d.c. for additional forces wasn't going to make me mr. popular but we did that. as we did that, that was very difficult political time in the fall of 2000 as you know. a new administration. it wasn't a popular war. we pushed the throughput as we push that through and were successfully make in that argument i think there were already people who were skeptical about here we go

again. were going to have another iraq. we are going to have another vietnam, whatever they wanted. i don't think we were as convincing to all the other constituents and supporters as we needed to be. so i think it's got a great chance right now. unfortunately i'm still -- [inaudible] >> i want to turn to the same that i want to push back on one thing which i think any people who like you visited afghanistan often, which is that there was a way in which you are building on quicksand because of the corruption and incompetence of the karzai government and building on quicksand isn't a viable strategy. how would you respond to that? my favorite movies monty python and the holy grail. [laughter] do you remember the scene where they go into the town and they

say we built this castle and its tank in a swamp so we built another castle. we built the seventh castle and estate trade i guess i would respond i didn't have a choice. you couldn't fix every problem at once. we were trying to fix corruption and trying to fix government but we didn't have a lot of time so i thought what we had to do was first convinced the afghan people it was going to get better. provide enough security to convince people hey it's different this time. i absolutely knew we were standing on quicksand because people believed the money was was going up the backdoor as fast as you put it in the front door but the same time it takes a long time to fix those problems. those are cultural as well as fiscal so dave rodriguez and i, one of the officers, we used it in my office and look at each other and say can we do this? he's an old west point football player and he said we will have to pass on every down and then

we have a 50/50 chance. then we looked at each other and said that this is our mission. so that was the mindset that i had. >> i have to rise to the defense of president karzai. part of the problem was also the expectation of american liberals in particular that democracy should be like scandinavian democracy. instead of accepting the fact that there's probably going to be more like chicago in the 1980s. [laughter] and so cut them a little slack. there is a tribal society that says it's still at war. look, but can you imagine any state in the united states being at war for 13 years? one third of their population was driven into -- so coming

back to rebuilding and rebuilding political organization and getting people together you know you have to do it in many ways. i'm not supporting corruption and i've never supported corruption but i think sometimes the standards by which afghanistan is measured are a little too high and i think that in that sense afghanistan, if i was running afghanistan i will wouldn't take money for myself but i would probably turn a blind eye to some of the things that are happening because i need the support of this tribe or that political faction. speak to quick stories. we went on a triple and time down to kandahar in the place where we met the building was not in good shape. president karzai says it really wasn't good shape. the previous government there and pretty well-known to have a

fair amount of corruption said he would never let it be like that. one of his ministers said yes or but he would have stolen the money from the federal government to do that. the president looked at him and said we would have just wasted it. [laughter] the other story on democracia's eyes tux senator levin and everybody was upset because they thought it was huge corruption. president karzai was going to win anyway. he could stuff the ballot boxes but the pashtun candidate was going to win it was going to be him. we went to a village in senator levin and i sat in this room with 50 other big haired guys everyone sitting on the floor and a one point senator levin says you know i got reports that everyone in this village voted for president karzai. how is that democracy? that was translated and one guy stood up and he said, to i don't get it. we all got together, we talked about it, go we decided

president karzai was the best person for us why would we split our vote? we are not stupid. he said okay. >> so, before turning to the audience for your questions, let me ask you the baseline issue that we are all going to be struggling with which is as american combat forces leave next year, kia what is afghanistan going to look like and what is pakistan going to look like? you hear a lot of people who say that for all that we have done, for all the planning and effort and intense struggle and loss of life that general mcchrystal and his forces put in, that afghanistan is going to go back into a civil war. you hear a lot of people

ambassador haqqani who say whatever nawaz sharif is saying the pashtuns will go back to gaming afghanistan and using it as a rear buffer in dealing with india and we will have the same crazy stuff we had before. so i want to ask each of you separately, let's take five to 10 years. give me your honest picture of what that country looks like. >> i reserve the right to be wrong. i think and we sometimes use the word muddle along. i actually think it's not going to break into a civil war. i think there are enough things link in the country together now that they will together. it's critical that president karzai give up power in 2014 to elect it replacement and it's critical that guy's last name not a karzai. i think they will probably be the pashtuns because of the breakdown of the country but i think what happens is the institutions that have been built are still immature.

i think there is enough strength to the other thing, and this i can't mention but the women i go within afghanistan have a tough road to hoe but they are incredibly strong. i don't think they have any interest in going back. the ones that i met are not going to. the young people, the millennials -- [applause] yeah, they deserve a hand. the millennials are disdainful of our generation. they think that people in our generation has made huge mistakes and then corrupt etc. and they want this generation to move on and they are probably right. a certain point you've probably got to move this generation out so that young people who have gotten a different view on things and they will make a lot of mistakes but i think what happens if afghanistan holds together i think it still suffers from periodic internal insurgencies, little taliban truncated parts of it. i don't think if we are smart

that al qaeda goes back there in significant numbers but if they are in afghanistan holds together it will be easier to address. their challenge of course is politics and the long-term. >> i think i share that view of general mcchrysmcchrys tal about afghanistan. i think that in any case the taliban are now restricted to the eastern provinces bordering pakistan so basically there i think we should pay more attention to dealing with the arsonists. a to think that the taliban -- is a wrong idea. someone supports the taliban in afghanistan because they want to have some influence in politics. that is what needs to be dealt with. pakistan is going to be more

complex. i think they're many -- if you look at the election results he has won purely by punjab the votes. he hasn't had the support of any other ethnic group in pakistan. the military hard-line will still remain and the vicar of hard-line that no one wants it pay attention to is the islamist versus the -- so that is something that needs to be worked out. i think pakistan will have problems. if remains on the democratic course most probably there will maybe it democratic alternative that will emerge after nawaz sharif in the next election that may say enough, these are our real problems and this is what government can do. we are not going to try to conquer afghanistan. we will make friends with whoever is the in afghanistan. yes we have the right but we

will not try to get her right now. we will grow our economy. put those kids that are not in school in school and move forward. that may have been five years later but the next five years we will have a mixture of bad news and worse news. >> so, that was an honest assessment. >> that is honest and helpful. let me close this out just by offering it reef comment from the moderator. ambassador haqqani was careful to speak of the arsonists about being specific as to who that might possibly be. but if you assume that what we are talking about here is whether the isi and the pakistani intelligence service will continue to meddle in afghanistan so as to protect its security interests it's interesting that the isi from

what i report has been working pretty intensively and effectively with the taliban negotiators who have come to doha qatar to begin negotiations with the u.s. representative. it's a broad group representatives of the breath of the taliban and has members of the haqqani network who were the scariest people of all who seemed to be included so that is the work of the isi and you look at that take and save that they are at least now trying to get this peace process a chance. on the question that i put to the two panelists, the idea that afghanistan is just going to fall back in time with so many americans have is this idea that this premodern country will just fall back into the dark ages. don't believe that. in the years that we have been

in afghanistan it has become a largely urban society the size of kabul kaunda hard herat all the cities that have doubled and tripled. the electrical connections. when i look at the numbers the one thing i know is it's not going to be the same as it was. i don't know what it will be. let's turn to the audience for your questions. rather than ask bob and everybody else if you go back to those microphones and we will call on people. there is one here and one here. yes, man. >> shelley washington d.c.. i may national finance cochair for the ready for hillary packed. you have presented on one hand some optimistic viewpoints and on the other hand some perhaps not so optimistic ones but if you had a chance to ask the

president current or future in terms of moving and making progress in the region what would that be the xp do you want to direct that at one? >> i would like to hear from either one. >> i think a strategy. what we have not done well enough as to be able to articulate how we would like this to come out. i think we have to be there live live -- realistic. we have to be very humble about the changes and the impact we have in the region but i'm not sure we sit down ever and for the american people as well as for people we are dealing with painted picture of how we would like it to come out. then the pieces start to have logic. i think sometimes we execute pieces without that larger picture. >> my quick one-liner is don't give the impression that --

when you do that you are encouraging the enemy. the taliban has said we have the time and the americans have the watches. that is a political problem here. they didn't have to announce a date for their final withdrawal because then you're just telling them how long they have to wait. to get the peace process going so well you are withdrawing you don't do anything else. it could be like if you hung to who engaged in the peace process for a long time while they were planning with the north vietnamese how to actually take over saigon. optimism is a great thing. since i moved to this country have realized there is optimism and then there is optimism based on realism. i think the latter is a lot better.

>> hi my name is on mir and i'm an american of pakistani and indian descent. i do a lot of traveling and when i travel sometimes it's more convenient for me to be pakistani than it is to be american because there is a trust deficit in the muslim world against americans. my question is related to this page. what's the growing role of china and pakistan? i feel like pakistan is looking for alternatives and engaging with u.s. and china one of its neighbors is starting to increase its -- and if we are talking about pathways to resolving some of the complex will will will china plan what is the u.s. perspective? >> you china and pakistan have been closed since 1950 actually and the real thing pakistan needs is a large capital import. i don't see large amounts of chinese money coming because it's a great fantasy.

the chinese will -- china does remain engaged with pakistan but the chinese have been engaging pakistan for 15 years now to put down the jihadi's and move on and make peace with india. i think it's the chinese policy and then there's this little romance the pakistanis have about china being the great writ dreamer to come in and help them and i don't think the latter is all that realistic. >> general ambassador would you address more fully pakistan al qaeda and pakistan taliban? >> pakistan taliban is quite obvious. most people understand it because pakistan -- a the mujahideen groups failed and

ended up supporting the taliban so that is the connection. officially pakistan says we have contacts with them but we do not control them. which may be true but if that is the case pakistan does not support them at all because the of contra -- context of people who don't listen to why take responsibility for their actions when you have no control over them? that is how they are brought to doha for the peace process. it's more complicated and there were too many groups in pakistan tolerate it in different degrees and maybe the ones with and supporting al qaeda and that the government of pakistan. pakistan needs to be with al qaeda otherwise the fact that almost all major al qaeda leaders that have been found have been found in pakistan is

something that really does cast a shadow on my country. >> i would add i don't think pakistan, i don't think al qaeda has ever been pakistani in nature. they have been there a long time so their relationships that make it a little stickier than somebody outside that they are still a foreign entity that can be done away with. there is an afghan taliban and a pakistani taliban. inside pakistan the pakistani taliban is focused really against the government of pakistan. the afghan taliban are focused and they are largely afghan and ethnicity. they are focused against the government at afghanistan. the isi when we talk about the relationship with afghanistan that is largely with afghan taliban. i was in a lot of detainee interrogations and what not in the least popular people to the

afghan taliban are isi. so when you think about it there isn't a relationship. it's not one of these things where they are best buddies and they watch sports together and drink there. it is very much one of using each other in coercion and threats and whatnot so it's important to understand that. it's so complex that it doesn't allow it. a very short answer. >> question what i'm going to ask you for a one-word answer. do you believe that osama bin laden for five years in abbottabad pakistan without anyone in the pakistani military intelligence knowing about it? >> no, don't believe it. >> i'm going to ask you for a 10 word answer. [laughter] >> this is my opinion.

i don't think general kayani newdow. i don't think the leadership confab don't think there is think there was a plan of what he was that this was 700 meters from the gates of west point. who knows what 700 meters are from the gates of west point but the reality is it was a distinct compound. it was like the fun house at the end of the street where people didn't at the same as everybody else in the neighborhood in an area where people are not actually trusting so somebody facilitated something. i buy into the idea that the ambassador and i were talking about. it probably was not official but someone who has a relationship with an official who is providing help. there is a delegate to ask questions that need to be asked. there's a failure of due diligence. >> sometimes if you read new was sharif's book he talks about how the and at that time there were three houses that were al qaeda

houses that they discovered. if this was one of those houses why didn't they keep monitoring it subsequently is a big question? that said it's not conducive to my health and well-being to answer this question. [laughter] >> you are an american professor now. >> i'm still a pakistani citizen. that's the only citizenship i have. a think i have said enough. [laughter] [applause] >> john from palazzo. general mcchrystal thank you for your service and general haqqani thank you for your great sense of humor. i am still scared that it's a pretty unstable society. can you give me any confidence? >> i think you are right. an unstable society should not

have nuclear and nuclear deterrence needs a better concept and better practice and not -- last but not least -- general mcchrystal knows many pakistan generals. there are no loose nukes in pakistan. pakistan does have a command-and-control system and it's a pretty stable one. is it too stable? perhaps not the people would argue is that the only criteria? you can't go in to them away. you couldn't take them way from the soviet union and you can't take them away from china. in the end the best course for pakistan is for pakistan developing the trust of the rest of the world whereby pakistan can have a minimum nuclear deterrent which is security but

takes away the fears that you and i and everybody else has about an unstable country having nuclear capabilities. >> general mcchrystal? >> we have time for one last question. sir? 's. >> my question is much broader and directed to the general. it seems to me that presidents,, presidents go. we have the same policy, call it robust, call it continuation of the british empire where the sun never set. where do you in this government wears this continuous streak of military warfare etc., etc. coming from? where exact way are the -- to continue our robust approach? >> i think i know we stand based on the question.

it's in the first floor on the e ring of the pentagon. [laughter] it lies in the fact that america has defined certain interests and the the protection or the security of certain allies and whatnot. we have identified certain interests. we then make decisions to use or not use military force in that case. sometimes we get it wrong. sometimes we think, i'm not sure we get the interest wrong. it's hard to argue with that they brought interests but the way we go after them, you can ask yourself whether that furthered american interest or didn't and people come down on both sides. i don't make that it was a couple of evil people trying to do world hegemony. i think it was a bunch of good people who gave an assessment

they came out with a different conclusion that you might or i might or anyone else. i never buy into the conspiracy theory. i've never gotten into a room where the conspirators are there. >> them conspiring to do something to give her to change the world is difficult to expect. [laughter] here is what i think. the problem does not lie in america having all this power. in some cases you can use it for a lot of good. the problem lies in the fact that americans of the nation to not know how to do things on a small scale. example when you go to afghanistan and you are trying to change everything such as how they run their schools, president eisenhower used to talk about the military and you

also have ngo development complex. when i was ambassador one of my favorite -- used to be that the aid to pakistan include studies on how to run schools in pakistan conducted by americans. why should they do that? why can't you let me the judge of how to run a school in my own country. if that was the case they would be a lesser footprint abroad. he would have more friends abroad and you'll be using your military a lot more shall we say with less of the fallout that you complain about and everybody feel strongly about. >> one problem and having former officials is that i often end up wishing they were current officials. [applause] i want to thank them for this. [applause]

. .

they are raising al qaeda flags. no country would listen to the advice to be patient. in fact, what happened, we not only waited -- what happened, and i assure you that my colleagues will never take initiative to use weapons, and wait and see to see what took place there.

i wish you had seen the tons of weapons that have been confiscated from the square. we are going through a difficult moment, but we believe that even in the coming weeks will be rather difficult, but we are sure that with popular support that we are having, with the popular determination that we have to go on as a democratic civil country, not a country that will be ruled by an agenda that will take us to the middle ages. we deserve democracy. we deserve development. we deserve prosperity. we deserve relations with all the powers of the world. here i come to the final point. i know there are certain feelings about difficult times in our relationship. i think this is quite logical.

one of the -- of being here, i am here to listen. if you want to criticize me, go ahead. we have friends. we know very much that it is not only that the united states is the strongest power in the world, it is the only superpower in the world. i was ambassador to russia and i have seen how the world order has changed from bipolar too unipolar and this is different

from any country in the world. we know that. we know as well that egypt is important to the united states. not because you love us, but because there are interests. the middle east is of great importance. a region full of interests, resources, the american presence is something indefensible. egypt is -- on my tour in africa, one of my colleagues told me, egypt is broken. it is not because we are a superpower. we are what we are. we are in a region, a geographic area in the center of the world. it is -- we have the suez canal, the middle east, israel, palestine, so many nations associated with egypt, and it is

important that a relationship between egypt and the united states should be based on mutual respect. a big margin of differing but being friends as well. that is why i am here, to listen, to explain. i tried, i know that you have warned me not to be -- i am trying to leave time for questions. so, i thought that i should just have -- i'm sorry if it was a little bit long. we can have not necessarily questions rather than discussion. we need to get into a discussion. i want to listen to you without being prejudiced.

let's not be prejudiced, neither mead nor you. -- neither me nor you. let's try to be logical and understanding. among friends, it is not that we are picking on each other. we are in a difficult moment. don't jump to conclusions. i am listening to your question. >> [inaudible] >> mohamed elbaradei has resigned as vice president. how does this change your thinking about this difficult moment? how does this change your thinking about what you learn from your colleagues in the recent 24 hours? how does this change the situation politically for egypt? >> mohamed el baradei is free to do that. he has been asking for peaceful

means and so forth. but there is the voice of the people. the people have been asking that you have to bring the situation to an end. we want to have the country moving on. it is not a disaster. we owe him a great respect. he is a friend as well. in any regime, if somebody would resign, that should not make it a kind of change in the situation. the situation has changed because there is a direct effort by the government to bring a chaotic situation to an end.

we hope that from now on we will continue containing this crisis. to limit all kinds of casualties as much as we can. >> baradei's resignation reflects growing concern that this government is carrying out tactics that they don't approve of, that it is looking more like a security state. my question to you is about long-term thinking about the islamists. how the government has been giving with the sit in. at some point they have to bring islamists into the political process.

it seems to many here in washington that a military situation only makes them stronger, drive them underground and pushes them to resort to violence. how do today's actions support the demands of the people for a more inclusive democratic egypt? >> thank you very much. you have to make it for a clear that being an islamist is not a crime. we are not against islam. we are against those who are adopting violence as a means of action. you should remember that we have two arms for islamist groups. you have the muslim brother movement and the party. the party is recognized as officially registered and was invited more than once to join the political assoio

that invitation is still open. we know that they are part of the egyptian people we cannot just assume they don't exist. we are inviting them, provided you have to abide by regulations. you have to abide by the rule of law. there is no violence. you cannot accept that because of reconciliation that you will accept an armed group to join the political process. i need to confirm. that was declared even in cairo. they are invited to be part of the political process. here, i want to make a point. they say, we would like to have a civil -- they say, we too. civil government means what? a civil country with a

democracy, so on. there is always room for a kind of exchange between how we would run the country. they were not there to impose a religious agenda and they are not there to govern egypt with >> are there any questions from the press? >> i know it is early days and the situation is still unclear, but there are credible reports of over 100 protesters dead. i know you said the country couldn't wait forever for these protests to die down. do you not accept that it could have been handled in a better way? >> i wish you could tell me. if you wait for five or six weeks, and with all kind of

persuasion you are adopting. your inviting them and even william burns, lady ashton, ministers here and there, talking to them. this is an important point to highlight, this kind of international attention helps -- rather than helps to get compromise, it gives them more support to go on their own path rather than listen to reason. just see the scenario after the police have intervened to disperse the crowd. see the scenario that the reaction to attack different parts of the country -- that means that they have it prepared plan. it would have happened no matter

when. the situation is, while i agree with you and we wish there was no intervention, the fact is the country is paralyzed. you have 83 million people who are angry and pressuring the government that we cannot live under the situation anymore. you may listen to reports -- i will assure you again, there was no initiative to shoot at the muslim brotherhood. we are getting reports from al jazeera and others. i know. let's not jump to conclusions. the figures i am receiving from official sources is totally different from the ones they are declaring. they have a wonderful way of communication. i tell you, had it been possible

that there was any other means to avoid confrontation, we would have done it. we reached a moment where we had no choice. >> anymore? hold on one second, if you could speak into the mic. >> while you were speaking, the white house released a statement condemning the use of violence against protesters. what do you make of that troubling signal to you? >> i find it quite logical. of course. i don't see that as something unexpected. let's see -- better wait to assess the situation. what you receive in the news, there is a possibility that they

should make a statement. that does not mean that we have come to the final position. i would like to remind you that at the beginning of the revolution, the position was totally different. the situation is changing. i don't want to take it as offense. you may -- they made a statement, we listened to it and we will have to respond. more explanations are needed. we know that the united states is interested to have a peaceful democratic egypt, and they want to have it. it is only normal that they are concerned and worry. we perceive that and we respect that. we may differ on the kinds of

statements and judgments, but it is not anything but continuous understanding between both parties. >> can i ask about the state of emergency that has been imposed? that was in place for years under president mubarak. what is the justification behind that? >> let me tell not only you but everybody. we have to stop talking about the past. we always compare the past -- we have a future. we have a revolution. why don't you believe that we have a new egypt and we are going through a difficult moment? during mubarak's time, this used to happen and the people didn't have a say in this. i want to stress this point. don't take egypt as only a regime or a government.

take people as people. there is a new factor in the equation. you have appreciated them, you have shown great respect to their revolution in january. we cannot understand why this position was not similar. we know how much you appreciate egyptian people culturally, historically, as civilized people. answering your question, i was talking to my daughter-in-law. people are scared. those who have escaped from the squares are attacking everywhere. they are attacking shops, homes, houses, people in the street. they are a kind of historic reaction. that is why in order to protect the people, you have to impose it. we hate it.

we don't like it. i agree that we have bad memories of this. this is, if that would happen comforted in any other place, that is the normal reaction for a responsible country. you have to impose curfew. that is too much for five minutes. >> thank you very much. my question is, do you believe that the continued detention of mohamed morsi is helping or hurting the situation. you spoke of exhausting alternatives. his detention seems like it could be one option. >> all right, first, there is a kind of case. he has a legal case in the court. let's assume that he is innocent. think logically.

release him and put him back to his house. you tell me the story, what would happen? his supporters would go there. you have a kind of demonstration, another demonstration from his opponents. then, you are creating even to protect his own life. i am talking humanely. this is something, with the kind of attention if he was removed and went back home and his supporters accepted, there would be no problem. you have seen the kind of reaction industry. the violence that has been used, i don't know why i was telling kate come you tend to listen to the opposition rather than the government.

i am telling you that what the government is saying today -- nobody can lie today. the people have their eyes wide open. we were unable -- he has a case. he is detained legally now. he is detained legally because he has a case. i don't want to get into that. nevertheless, i think it would have been a very risky business to free him. he would never accept. ask your representatives who met him, what he said. he said, continuously, i am the legitimate president. he would go back -- i have to go back to my office, to my supporters. it could have compensated the situation. >> can have a sip of water? >> quick question. i am with --. congressmen have called on the u.s. government. what is the purpose of your visit here? will you visit some u.s. officials here? >> i came to visit you.

i explained that. i came here in order to meet the think tanks of society as much as possible. it is important to listen to you. i am coming back with information's questions, concerns, criticism, even with sometimes bitterness. this is very important. we have an ambassador here and the embassy is very active. still, to have a kind of face- to-face discussion like the one we have today is very important. tomorrow i will be seeing the minister of foreign affairs or maybe the prime minister to tell them where we are. the u.s. is a priority for us. i have been advising. this is an issue that is being extremely mishandled. every time we have misunderstandings, we hear, we have to cut. eight, who said that eight is only in egypt's interest? you keep using this as a

statement. if you don't be a good boy, i will hit you. we feel offended about this kind of argument. i know the justification for this. this is not a way to undertake respectable relations between countries. aid is not a charity. you have to forget about that. it is a means for achieving the interests of both countries. you need aid as much as egypt needs it. the people are mature logically and politically, when the vote was put, they voted in favor of aid. it is not because they like us, hope they will.

they know that this is in the mutual interest of both countries. he might be aggressive -- >> you noted bill burns's trip to egypt and his meeting last week. both sides really criticize the u.s.'s role. do you think the u.s. does have a role in helping egypt find reconciliation or should we stay out of it? >> i do. it depends on what.

i said u.s. is the united states of america. their role is indispensable. again, why they criticize -- the first part of your question. the moment, the first statement made by the administration after the 30th of june was, it is a shock. they remembered how great was your position in january and they found that you have a totally different question and that was a big disappointment. because we cared, we had to criticize this. you have to complete the story. our statement has -- once, john kerry said we understand this situation. now we understand that morsi's regime was not democratic. it was the will of the people

that we have to respect. the whole situation has been changed. i want us to discuss with you what you mean. when we talk about reconciliation as if you were talking in a normal situation

between two three or four political powers. what you are talking about is between the majority of the country or an executive power. the people are on one side and muslim brothers on the other side. when you're talking about reconciliation as if there is no revolution that has happened. i accept that you mean we have to find a way out. in order to include these -- they are egyptians and they want them back as egyptians who are taking part in the development of the country. abiding by legal rules, by the

rule of law, by human rights, respecting minority rights, respecting women's rights, respecting the rules of the game. >> thank you for being here. my question has to do with, what are your thoughts on the situation for the media in egypt and the harassment and violence they face, not just by pro-morsi supporters but by government security? >> i didn't get it. you speak very quickly. >> my apologies. there has been a great deal of violence and harassment of journalists both by pro-morsi supporters as well as by government forces who have been during the coverage of the situation. what are your thoughts on this? >> if it is true, i condemn that.

this is really bad. the problem is, the media people have such an appetite to get into the crowds and to create, maybe a policeman would think that to protect him is to push him. forcefully away from demonstrations. or, to take him away, to disperse the people and the problem with the photographer or mediaman trying to be on the spot. what i mean, it is bad. i reject it. officially and personally. you have to appreciate it is not arbitrary. you think of a situation where complete anarchy, you have people with weapons on the other side, you have to remember this. they have weapons.

they are shooting. i understand that some journalists were killed. they used weapons. i have seen this before. the guards of any president. especially the u.s. president, if anybody stand in the way, they pull him away. that kind of reaction is bad, negative, but we have to appreciate that it was something that they had to resort to on the assumption that they protect these people or keep them away from the conflict. >> one of the major incidents before morsi was taken out of office was that 3000 people

attacked shiites. shiites were not included on the interim voting counsel. what is the role of shia in egypt moving forward? >> that is a good question. before i try to answer this, i just want to remind you of the statement made by former president two weeks before he was removed. the people, the muslims, there were a all islamists who attended this undeclared meeting. the shias were attacked vigorously. he did not make one single word. what happened later on?

shias were killed in a most uncivilized manner. they were tortured. i am just giving an idea where the country was heading to. how polarization and politicizing has been the umbrella that is governing the country. shias are very few in egypt. just in few numbers. nevertheless, that does not mean that they should be deprived of their rights to be part of the political process. i think it would depend very much on them to take the first step in order to express their willingness to join the local process. i assume that at this stage, they are in a state of lack of understanding. they don't know -- i think they

want to protect themselves. until the 30th of june, all they wanted was to be protected from sunni attacks. i think this point is an important one. >> i have a question from the overflow room. how the interim government treats ngo's, can you comment on the ngo workers? >> i think i made it clear that one of the objectives of my visit here was to meet civil organizations. we believe -- i have to tell you that we have more than 35,000 ngo's in egypt. this is a big number compared with the number of population.

i personally believe that they have a huge, huge force. a very important role to play. on so many occasions, they are much better than the government. they can reach the people. they can deal with the street. they can deal with poverty, with women, with children, with health, it is such a power. it should be a kind of -- by the government itself. i would venture to say that with this government, the understanding of the role of ngo you will see such a positive attitude. the law reviewed by the former

president was criticized by the ngo, dejection and international. so i think, with, it's not only the ngo's. if you believe we are heading to you willtic path, then have to include ngo's as part of democracy, because they are one of the best expressions of democracy. and civilow ngo's society to work, that means that you have to get used to hear different views. thatou have to get used to the government is doing everything that you have to delegate authority. you have to get into a partnership with the ngo's. >> this morning on c-span, the atlantic council looks at freedom of the press in egypt. live"washington journal is with your phone calls.

then the summer meeting in boston. the republican national committee is holding its summer meeting in boston and today they will be showcasing some of their younger officeholders. our live coverage begins at 11:15 a.m. eastern time on c- span. the agreement between the u.s. and south korea to share nuclear power technology. coverage from the johns hopkins school of advanced international studies begins at 2:00 p.m. eastern time. >> c-span, we bring public affairs events from washington directly to you, putting you in the room at congressional

hearings, white house events, briefings and conferences, and offering complete, gavel to gavel coverage of the u.s. house , all as a public service of private industry. we're c-span, created by the cable tv industry 34 years ago and funded by your local cable or satellite provider. now you can watch us in hd. >> also yesterday, the atlantic session about a press freedoms in egypt. it was held after reports that a cameraman for skye news and a reporter were killed by covering the protest in cairo. this is just over an hour. >> on my left we have sherif mansour, who is the coordinator for the committee to protect journalists. he has previously worked with freedom house in washington, and he managed advocacy training for activists in the middle east and north africa.

in 2010 he cofounded the quite famous egyptian association for change. a washington-based nonprofit mobilizing egyptians in the u.s. to support the opposition coalition led by mohamed elbaradei. sharif has been involved in monitoring egyptian elections in cairo and has worked as a freelance journalist. in 2004 he was honored by the center for human rights for his work in defending freedom of expression in egypt. on my right is adel iskander, who was a scholar of arab studies whose research focuses on media and communications. he is the author and editor of several works, including "al jazeera, the story of the network that is rattling governments and redefining modern journalism." and "edward said." his most recent publication is the anthology "egypt in flux, essays on an unfinished revolution." you probably should've have waited to finish that book.

he teaches at the center for contemporary arab studies and communication at georgetown university in washington, d.c. we will ask sherif to start. this meeting is being held today because the c.p.j. is launching its report on press freedom in egypt. the report is called "on the divide, press freedom and risk in egypt." there are copies available. please pick one up on your way out. i will let him talk about the report. >> thank you very much. thank you for holding the event. and for adel to come along. he is one of the people who helped us in writing the report. about the media environment in egypt. this report is a compilation of all our work monitoring the egyptian press violations since morsi took over in 2012.

we have had more than 40 different pieces of commentary about press violations, press issues in egypt. and we conducted an assessment mission that, led by our executive director to cairo in march, more than 15 people from across the spectrum, ngo's, civil society, government, and opposition, to assess their perception of press freedom under morsi. since then, we have been planning to issue the report. the original date was june 15. you know what happened then. we decided to wait a little bit and see if there was anything to add about the post-morsi era. that resulted in a whole chapter that you will find in the second chapter that we call post-

military censorship. that chapter, we tried as much to assess different things. one of them is the legal impact. this is our biggest finding, that yes, egypt had a revolution, several interim governments, and each of them have promised to include and introduce reforms to the system, including the press environment. for so long, the journalists in egypt have advocated for abolishing a lot of the restrictions on journalists and the press, and every government that came to power since mubarak said they will respond to that. they did not. the muslim brotherhood, particularly under morsi, had a complete opportunity to change the system. they ran a process to draft a new constitution.

even at the end, they could not introduce anything they wanted to do. on the contrary, they did not just keep a lot of the press restrictions, they introduced others. in a constitution that was approved at the end of 2012. one of our partners, the arab network for human rights, counted as many as 70-something articles in the egyptian penal code, including the press law, that restricts freedom of the press and freedom of speech. in addition to that, in addition to the legal aspects, the operational aspect, how the government is handling critical voices, all the governments since mubarak was ousted have also fallen short of respecting critical views. under morsi, there was a whole campaign against the media.

intimidation, physical and legal intimidation for journalists that included hundreds of cases of profiling against critical journalists. accusing them of defamation charges. one of our local partners, the egyptian organization of human rights, has counted 600 cases after nine months only of president morsi's tenure. that is like several times more the number of cases that were filed during mubarak's 30 years. the comparison is huge, how much the specific tactic, which we considered in the past a hallmark of the mubarak regime, morsi has won the title fair and square. later on, also morsi supporters have waged a series of attacks, physical attacks against journalists. we have counted in the first years of morsi's tenure, 78

attacks, physical attacks preventing journalists from covering opposition protests mainly. those also happened around the media production city, which in several cases the muslim brotherhood and allies wanted to limit and intimidate media coverage of the opposition by organizing sit-ins, which sees to media city, which is a hub for almost all tv stations in egypt, including independent and private ones. that happened three times during the year. it only happened when morsi wanted to push in controversial policies. one of them was against the army. one of them was a constitution. one of them was trying to

crackdown on the media. all in all, president morsi had kept a lot of the restrictions and renewed and used more of those restrictions and introduced new ones. the military government, in summary, over the last months have waged a wide campaign of censorship. it started immediately at the speech the general gave to oust morsi. several minutes after, several police vehicles stormed into the media city, physically stopped coverage of at least five stations that support president morsi, former president morsi, and arrested 200 people and later on kept 21 of them under investigations of so-called

inspiring to overturn the regime. that is in the time the regime itself had only a few minutes to start. one of the people i talked to did not even have a chance to speak one word before he was arrested. these tv stations so far are still closed. some of those are kept behind bars for accusations of inciting violence. so we have two things here. one of them is that there is an executive body, an executive administration decision without judicial overview or independent assessment of the content of the stations. that violates the national standards. we try to introduce some of those norms. there is a precedent in the johannesburg convention that

took place right after the genocide of rwanda. you see the most direct link between incitement in the media and violence taking place. the participants in this conference, including people from the press freedom organization, journalists, and also people who represent the government opinion of maintaining order and preventing crime. the way they have handled this, to reach a balance in which they can respect individual rights of speech and also the government mandate of using sanctions to prevent crime. they have said that mainly we need a very clear and specific law that defines what incitement of violence is and also directly links it to changes or events on the ground, and also has an independent verification from a

court that follows that law and interprets that law. it should not be an executive decision. so, this is one of the key issues that we monitor, whether this interim government led by the military as respecting freedom of speech. promises very similar to the once made by morsi to respect freedom of speech. one of them was delivered on, abolishing or reducing the sentence of charges of insulting the president. limiting it only to reasonable fines, up to $5,000 per case. but there are other important conditions. promises that need to be implemented, including abolishing of criminal charges on press violations, specifically jail sentences.

we also introduced some recommendations at the end of the report for political parties, the international community. mainly to safeguard and protect the press by amendments to the constitution. and also for political parties to help and secure and protect journalists, because we have a responsibility to the government in facilitating the journalists work. the international community should keep press freedom on the agenda. it's a key time to interpret the interim government's behavior and the response.

this is the report. i try to summarize as much as possible. we are open for questions later. thank you, again. >> thank you. you finished way before time as well. >> first and foremost, thank you very much for the invitation, both to the atlantic council and for cpj, for having me here. my thoughts and reflections are going to try and not reiterate what sharif had explained but rather taking into the direction of the state of journalism in egypt and how legal and institutional problems we have described thus far in terms of the various authorities that have then in place in the past two years have had as far as an impact when it comes to journalistic practice. if i were to assess the situation as far as journalism is concerned, the last two years there are characteristic -- are

a time when reporting in egypt has flourished and faltered. sometimes in tandem. we have seen the tail end of the last period of the mubarak era, there was an uptick in sort of openness of the media. journalists were starting to feel far more liberated, or were prepared to take greater risks and be as courageous as he could be within certain parameters as far as their news organization deemed permissible. of course, that culminated during the 18 days of the uprising, and in the aftermath it appeared as though the only pandora's box, the only black ox

box was the military. for over six years, the military had fairly strong grasp as far as the media is concerned. very little information about the military's political role, but more important, the economic assets in country had ever made its way into the newspapers or in public debate. nevertheless, it did not take long before that pandora's box opened up. during the 18 months of -- the interim period, during consecutive periods of political jockeying between various groups, notably the muslim brotherhood and alliance with various revolutionary groups that felt ostracized or marginalized by progress in the political scheme, that led to clashes in the streets. and the clashes in the streets provided munition for many of those news organizations to begin to venture into that space and begin to critique the

military in a manner they had not been previously. we saw the military recalibrate in some --retaliate in some respects. it was critical for skaf to illustrate their commitment to an open and free media environment in egypt. around that time that they ratified relicensed 16 new satellite stations, some that are islamist, others that are private that are now espousing a very anti-brotherhood position, so basically they opened up the spectrum significantly, while at the same time, ringing back the ministry of information after having promised to dissolve it entirely. basically a mixed bag. nevertheless, from a journalistic standpoint, at the time when morsi was elected to

assume the presidency, i think that was probably the widest margin of openness for journalism in egypt. shortly thereafter, of course, morsi found himself at odds politically with various groups, and that of course, translated into animosity from various news organizations that ascribe to a particular ideological stance or had interests that were not served by the muslim brotherhood. more importantly, what culminated was not a particularly open environment for the media. there was immediate retraction of the various gains that the media had accomplished during that period. probably the most important or the most critical and problematic of those curtailments was the rise of a populist movement that could be utilized and mobilized at will

to target news organizations to besiege the media production city and things of that sort. it was no longer the apparatus of the state that was the sole instrument for the oppression of the media. rather, it was something a little bit more complicated. the egyptian public, or the egyptian people, which is a necessary tool or has become a figure of speech -- where do the egyptians stand? we support morsi. we came out en masse to oppose him. as a figure of speech, it was used to critique the media. and arguably during that period, there was a struggle to really maintain some degree of professionalism within the egyptian media scene. towards the end, i would say

probably shortly after the struggle over the constitution in november and december, 2012, that is when things really -- or the polarization became so entrenched that it became practically intractable. that media organizations picked a side and pushed for it in a manner that, of course, sort of was we will during for-- bewildering for audiences that were not polarized, or may have seemed problematic from the standpoint of international journalists reporting on egypt at the time. you could not get two sides of the same story on the same network. the muslim brotherhood, politicians and officials, and islamists in general, would be prorated 24 hours a day -- be berated 24 hours a day on private networks. on the islamist channels, the

opposition could do no good, and they were criminalized and there were incitements. basically, whatever had been accomplished or gained journalistically speaking in terms of defining the characteristics and the ethics and the morality, whatever morals grounding journalism as a profession happens to have in egypt, was quickly wilting. but nevertheless, for those who believe there is something to be said about the value of having a partisan press, so long as it's diverse and covers a wide variety of different views, some rejoiced in these possibilities, that the there was an egyptian equivalent of fox news and msnbc. but this organization took on a far more ominous outlook in the

immediately after the removal of mohammed morsi. the examples that were described, where curtailments became, once again, the dominion of the state. the state said, this is problematic programming. this is in opposition to the new political circumstance, and it cannot continue to exist. so stations were taken off air. journalists were detained. where unfortunately, we are facing a circumstance now where we've gone a commendation of different factors. -- a combinatinon of different factors. the polarization remains steadfast, more so than ever before, almost to the extent that when you are watching egyptian television program, you switch between channels and they can create a sense of schizophrenia, because on one side, you hear a narrative and then the other side you see the complete counterpoint,the polar opposite. the two conditions are -- one heavy-handed attempt to censor

information that would be deemed problematic to the transitional problematic to the transitional governance process. then more subtly is a process of self-censorship. this self-censorship is not necessarily the one we have grown accustomed to whereby journalists out of fear of what repercussions, legal repercussions they may face and the liability of expressing opposition views, it is more complicated. it is almost as if by committing themselves to a specific political camp, if they were to contradict the messaging of that camp, they would risk the continuity of the transition process or the argument that this is a coup. so the self-censorship i think is largely an opportunistic self-censorship, imposed by journalists for journalists to

create sort of a media climate, and a psychic milieu within the country. that comes to the head with the events of last night and today, which i think for those of you who are following egypt closely, you will be well aware of the fact that two journalists have been killed, one of whom works for skye news, and another that works, a cameraman for skye, and a reporter for gulf news, a uae- based newspaper. the circumstances behind their killings are not clear. nevertheless, it at least lives up the performance of the morsi era, where there was at least two killings -- am i correct? during that period. and they arrested numerous

journalists. in a couple of months, the egyptian media environment has suffered significant setbacks. but i would argue that, while the setbacks that are immediately identifiable, of course the loss of life as much as we tend to mourn and focus on this, i think the greatest and gravest fallback has largely been a loss of any commitment to the journalistic practice as an important condition for the transition towards democratic governance. so, today we are at that point where media content precipitates a collision course, a political collision course between various parties. all of this to say that, really, most programming on egyptian media is comprised of opinion

with spring things of news. that's a -- sprinklings of news. nevertheless, i think it is a product of 60 years of false messaging. and the absence, of course,